TD 225 
.S25 A5 
1908 
Copy 1 




if? J ij-r 


» »r«*« « * *> t •» . ♦» i 

i8 TO S9SI: ;t ^ 

• « M ' ^ 1 « < » . * » I 




'; t : •;:. 1 




e » ♦ - 






rTifddc; 


* * r'*'t * * ** % * ■ * - • »-• ••■ 

ut; first;«? 
r ^-ddd 

*ou dtiTiard r:i‘2j- 


itx . . 

}K?g cHtitj 




RR7 :r, tiSSi: 
x: 


U;ddddddd-.d: 


ON 


CCS-Jtif ;cfj 


B88888II£fl^ 

ttfjctjtitiiix;: ;::r; 




r*f S '—T —3 •■»-■-» - • 

- 


riRi -t;?.- 




FOR. 


t^SSfrrii 


gssdddiid1:1:-: 

* ' T ^ / r •■ I » H » ■ # 4 * 

*•» ' 4 ' *-■*»' #-« 

f V* !»•»••» « 4 * 


♦»r v -f *. » X » * « «« » * X 
f ^’-T 4 * * • • ■*■ 

2 Rtii;tit;T;;:.R?: i. 

sinddddh^f-k- 

tetip rlririTidSi ;• 




jdiTi 




1900 TO 1908. INC: 


iddd 




.t;r :•.:. 


r -*i*.*dd-' r!i *— 




cx^RunaOi 

qtddjiJfHV 



































































































































































































































■ ' 













i • 

















TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE. 

Outline of history of the water supply of the City of San rrancisco. 

Marsden Manson, City Engineer. 3 

Report on the availability of water supply sources for San Francisco, 

California. C. E. Grunsky, City Engineer. 14 

Report on the Tuolumne River water supply project, with plans and a 

cost estimate. C. E. Grunsky, City Engineer. 36 

Report on the Tuolumne River water supply project, with plans and a 

cost estimate. Marsden Manson, City Engineer. 82 

Report of the City Engineer on the cost of the original construction of 
water works from Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor and Tuolumne 

River. Marsden Manson, City Engineer. 

Appendices and Index . 103 

Filings of James D. Phelan for reservoir rights-of-way. C. E. Grunsky, 

City Engineer . 106 

Petition to the Secretary of the Interior for review in the matter of the 
•application of Jas. D. Phelan for rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy 
Valley and Lake Eleanor within the Yosemite National Park. 

Franklin K. Lane, City Attorney. 112 

Letter of the Hon., the Secretary of the Interior, to the President, deny¬ 
ing the application of San Francisco. Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, Secre¬ 
tary of the Interior. 1-8 

Supporting Opinion of the Hon., the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
to the President. Hon. V. H. Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce and 

Labor . 133 

Petition for review to the President in the matter of the application of 
Jas. D. Phelan for rights-of-way in Hetchy Hetchy Valley and Lake 

Eleanor within the Yosemite National Park. Marsden Manson. 135 

Opinion from the Department of Justice to the President of the United 

States. Hon. M. D. Purdy, Acting Attorney-General. 147 

Hearing in San Francisco on the application of the City of San Francisco 

for reservoir sites and rights-of-way (Hetch Hetchy project). L48 

A brief in the matter of reservoir rights-of-way for domestic and 
municipal water supply for the City and County of San Francisco 

to the Secretary of the Interior. Marsden Manson. 169 

Brief of the Modesto Irrigation District in opposition to the City of San 
Francisco for rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake 

Eleanor. L. L. Dennett. 170A 

Brief of the Turlock Irrigation District on behalf of itself and Modesto 

Irrigation District in opposition to said application. P. J. Hazen. 171 

Reply to the statement and argument of counsel on behalf of Modesto 

Irrigation District. Marsden Manson and J. D. Galloway. 204 

Brief of the Secretary of the Interior praying for the renewal of applica¬ 
tion for reservoir rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake 
Eleanor. Marsden Manson. 211 





















PAGE. 


Petition of Marsden Manson, City Engineer of San Francisco, on behalf 
of the City and County of San Francisco, to the Secretary of the 
Interior Department, Washington, D. C., to reopen the matter of 
the application of Jas. D. Phelan for reservoir rights-of-way in the 


Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor sites in the Yosemite 

National Park . 213 

Decision of the Secretary of the Interior Department, Washington, D. C., 
granting the City and County of San Francisco, subject to certain 
conditions, reservoir sites and rights-of-way at Lake Eleanor and 

Hetch Hetchy Valley in the Yosemite National Park. 217 

Refilings of the claims to water from Tuolumne River and Eleanor Creek 223 
Transfer of refilings to water rights by Marsden Manson to City and 

County of San Francisco. 225 

Report of Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald and Chas. D. Marx, consulting 
engineers, on the adequacy of the Tuolumne source of water supply 
for San Francisco, Cal. 227 








» 


REPORTS 

ON THE 

WATER SUPPLY 

OF 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CALIFORNIA 

1900 TO 1908. INCLUSIVE 


PUBLISHED BY 

c _ _ Vr. 

o G~ -0"* 

Authority of the Board of Supervisors 


C. E. GRUNSKY, City Engineer, 1900-1903 
MARSDEN MANSON, C. E., City Engineer, 1908 

1908 


j j 
-> > ) 



PRESS OF BRITTON 6l REY 







p. OF 0. 

FFP 13 <909 



0 


« 


• • • 

* 



PREFACE 


OUTLINE OF THE 

History of the Water Supply 

of THE 

City of San Francisco 


Upon the settling up of the peninsula in 1849-50 the necessity of a water 
supply was met by springs and wells at several points within the limits of the 
city. The soil being unpolluted, these nearby sources were safe, but soon 
failed to meet the rapidly growing demand. Water was then brought from 
springs and streams in Marin County and distributed to homes, restaurants, 
hotels, shipping, etc., in buckets a^d casks (as is now being done). 

In 1851 the Mountain Lake Water Company undertook to bring the 
water of Mountain Lake and Lobos Creek into the city, and made a contract 
with the city of date June 1, 1851. (City Manual, page 117, Ordinance No. 
167.) This ordinance was amended and the time extended from time to time. 

In 1857 the San Francisco Water Works was organized and succeeded 
in bringing in the water of Lobos Creek around the shores of Golden Gate, 
by tunnel through Fort Point, and flume to Black Point, where it was pumped 
to suitable elevations. Water was introduced on September 16, 1858. 

This company and the previous one, the Mountain Lake Water Company, 
had numerous suits at law. The Mountain Lake Water Company failed in 
1862 and went out of business. 

In the meanwhile George H. Ensign organized the Spring Valley Water 
Works under a charter obtained from the legislature. He took up a small 
spring near the intersection of Mason and Washington streets and laid a few 
pipes in 1858. He kept this franchise alive by extensions of time until 1860, 
when it was bought by a stronger company. (This company retained the 
name of Spring Valley Water Works until 1904, when for the purpose of 
overreaching the state law, which limits the bond issue to the amount of 
stock, it doubled its capital stock so as to issue an equivalent volume in bonds. 
It then changed its name to Spring Valley Water Company). 

The stronger company organized in 1860 proceeded at once to actually 
bring in a supply from San Mateo County and introduced 2,000,000 gal. per 
day from Pilarcitos Creek in 1862. 

Litigation.—There then existed the two companies: (1) The old San 
Francisco Water Works, bringing in its supply from Lobos Creek via Fort 
Point to Black Point and pumping into reservoirs and mains. (2) The reor¬ 
ganized Spring Valley Water Works, bringing in the gravity supply of 
2,000,000 gal. per day from Pilarcitos via Lake Honda. There was no litiga¬ 
tion and no trouble about water for municipal purposes. But in February, 
1865, the two companies “consolidated,” or the Spring Valley Water Works 
“bought out” the other. In 1867, or two years later, there commenced a 
series of litigations which have continued until the present, notably the ten 
years’ litigation in which the city won the somewhat barren victory under the 
late John F. Swift, and the litigation now in progress in the United States 
courts, ostensibly for adjusting rates, but evidently to get a high valuation 
fixed for either rates or selling out. 




4 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


This Lobos Creek supply continued to furnish between one and two 
million gallons per day until 1895, when it was abandoned. In 1901, after 
several dry seasons, it was reintroduced by pumping it into the Richmond 
district mains, but was so foul that the company was forced to abandon it 
a second time. 

As the demand grew with increasing population and use, San Andreas, 
having a drainage area of 3.8 sq. miles, reinforced by the diversion of an 
additional square mile, was introduced. 

These sources proved insufficient, and following the dry season of 1876-7 
pumps were hurriedly erected and the water of Lake Merced was pumped 
into the previously constructed conduits, and Upper Crystal Springs dam 
was commenced. The history and function of this dam is interesting. 

It was evidently intended to make it appear that the site of the Lower 
Crystal Springs dam was not needed, for it was “gradually completed ’ in 
1890-1, or was about sixteen years in construction. In the meanwhile, Lower 
Crystal Springs dam was commenced, but work was not pushed, and the crit¬ 
ical period of 1886-8 caused the introduction of the Alameda Creek supply 
through two 16-in. submerged pipes from Dumbarton Point to Ravenswood, 
whence it was pumped into the Crystal Springs main. By 1890 Lower Crys¬ 
tal Springs dam was raised to a sufficient height to supply water. It was 
subsequently raised, and under ordinary conditions brings the peninsula sup¬ 
ply to about 20,000,000 gal. daily (exclusive of Lake Merced supply, which is 
of very questionable quality). 

In 1887 it was necessary to go to Alameda County for an increased sup¬ 
ply, and since that date all increased supplies have been directed to a further 
development of that source. 

In 1901 the two 16-in. submerged pipes were supplemented by two 22-in. 
mains. Artesian wells were sunk in Pleasanton Valley and galleries con¬ 
structed in Sunol gravel beds. These reinforcements brought the supply up 
to about 35,000,000 gal. per day. And to provide for a possible shortage, 
wells have been sunk near Ravenswood, connected with pumps, so as to drain 
the gravels in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. 

The “system” of supply as it now stands has been the result of a growth 
stimulated by two causes: (1) To meet from the most available source the 
increasing demand; (2) to acquire competing properties or projects and de¬ 
velop or hold them as occasion has required or may require. These two 
causes have gone on together, and it is difficult to completely segregate the 
investments and developments due to each. The result is a group of indi¬ 
vidual sources linked together by interconnections of a rather complicated 
character, but answering to the general term “system,” in which the mode of 
origin and development of Mrs. Stowe’s character “Topsy” is suggested. The 
various parts have been worked into a water supply for a city of nearly a 
half million people and property values of over half a billion dollars in a 
manner both unique and original, partly the result of design and partly of 
force of circumstances. 

The commencement of work on Lobos Creek by the Mountain Lake 
Water Company in 1851 was apparently done to meet the first requirement. 
The organization of the San Francisco Water Works in 1857 was a well- 
planned and successfully executed scheme to uproot the former company. 
The organization of the Spring Valley Water Works in 1858 was a specula¬ 
tive scheme pure and simple, and for two years, or until purchased by a 


SAX FBAXCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


o 


strong company in 1860, was carried on merely to hold a franchise. In that 
year this franchise was purchased by a group of capitalists, who retained the 
name and undertook to supplant the San Francisco Water Company by in¬ 
troducing water from Pilarcitos Creek in San Mateo County. This was done 
two years later, in 1862. 

Until 1865, when the Mountain Lake Water Works succumbed and were 
bought out by the Spring Valley Water Works, there was competition in the 
supply and peace in municipal circles. But only two years later, or in 1867, 
litigations began, and there has been practically no peace since, the most quiet 
times being instances of “armed neutrality” cn each side, with “system.” in- 
trenchments and heaviest guns on the side of the monopoly, and disorganized 
and unsustained effort on the side of municipal ownership. 

But in this struggle, the greatest of its kind in the water supply of Amer¬ 
ican cities, and extending over a third of a century, the city has frequently 
attempted to gain ownership of its water supply. The history of these at¬ 
tempts will now be briefly reviewed: 

The first investigations of the water supply, conducted by the city with 
a view to municipal control, were made in 1871-2. The dry seasons, 1869-70 
and 1870-71, emphasized the necessity of an increased supply, and on April 
10, 1871, the Board of Supervisors appointed a special committee on water 
supplies to investigate and report on the subject. This committee consulted 
Gen. B. S. Alexander. Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., and Prof. George Da¬ 
vidson. U. S. Coast Survey, and reported, December 11, 1871 (Mun. Rep., 
1871-2. p. 626 et seq.), “that the water sources of the peninsula, within rea¬ 
sonable distance, are amply sufficient to furnish an abundant supply of good, 
pure, fresh water to provide for the wants of San Francisco for at leost 
fifty years.” * 

Also, “that the city should own and have absolute control of the water 
works is a fact self-evident, and requires no favorable argument from us. 
The success and admirable management of the great water works of Xew 
York, Boston. Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington and other large cities in 
our own land afford satisfactory experience ample to vindicate its necessity 
and expedience}* in our own case.” 

General Alexander concluded, upon the basis of yield of Pilarcitos water¬ 
shed. that from the 60 sq. miles on the west slope of the peninsula drainage. 
20.244.000,000 gal. could be developed, which, with the yield of Canada de 
Raymundo. could be raised to 2L979.OCO.CCO gal., or a daily supply of 60.216.- 
434 gal. But he did not point out reservoir capacity for such a supply. 

Professor Davidson, who in 1869 had been called upon to report upon 
the supply of the then San Francisco Water Company, confirmed the con¬ 
clusions he had then reached, namely, that the peninsula supply was suffi¬ 
cient for 1.000,000 inhabitants. 

These plans involved a storm water canal along the west slope of the 
peninsula, a tunnel through the ridge and storage capacity far beyond any yet 
developed. The succeeding season, 1871-2. was exceedingly wet and no action 
was taken upon this report. 

The seasonal rainfall of 1872-3 again fell far below the average, and the 

*Yet in 1887. or fifteen years later, an additional supply was introduced 
from beyond the peninsula, or from Alameda Creek via the Dumbarton Point 
submarine pipes, as previously recited. 



6 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


subject of municipal ownership was again agitated. This resulted in the mis¬ 
directed and unfortunate steps taken in 1874-5, when the city undertook the 
“Scowden Surveys.” During these years Blue Lakes in the Sierra, Clear 
Lake, Calaveras Creek and the peninsula sources were surveyed and exam¬ 
ined. The resulting report and recommendation favored the acquisition by the 
city of Calaveras Creek, draining the northwest slopes of Mount Hamilton 
and adjacent outliers tp the north and forming the principal tributary of Ala¬ 
meda Creek, and subsequently known as “the Calaveras cow-pasture scheme.” 
Despite the rather flat and cold reception of this recommendation, the city 
was negotiating for the purchase of the alleged rights from the proponents 
of this scheme when the Spring Valley Water Works, fearing competition, 
forestalled the city’s action by the purchase of these rights and properties in 
May, 1875. (Mun. Rep., 1874-5, p. 684). The moves in this scheme appear 
to have been planned to force the sale of these properties, either to the city, 
as a source, competing with the Spring Valley Water Works, or to this com¬ 
pany, to prevent competition. This latter result was accomplished. Since 
1875 these properties have been held as an undeveloped resource of the 
Spring Valley Water Works, or its successor, the Spring Valley Water Com¬ 
pany, although brought forward from time to time as about to be developed. 

The sale above mentioned effectually put a stop to the proposed acquisi¬ 
tion of municipal water works, and the very wet season of 1875-6 quenched 
still further the feeble embers of this attempt. 

But varying climatic conditions seem to affect the moods of San Fran¬ 
cisco as to water supply, and the dry season of 1876-7 severely taxed the then 
existing supplies and again caused hurried efforts to be put forth by the 
Spring Valley Water Works to meet the demand. The city again, and on 
far broader lines, undertook to investigate the possibilities of existing and 
auxiliary sources. 

In 1876-7 there was conducted a series of surveys and examinations under 
the late Col. George H. Mendell, Corps Engineers, U. S. A., embracing all 
the sources which had been brought forward up to that time, and several ad¬ 
ditional ones. Offers of these were made to the city, as well as of the Spring 
Valley sources and properties. The sources examined were: 

(1) Existing supplies and undeveloped sources claimed by the Spring 
Valley Water Works. 

(2) Clear Lake. 

(3) Lake Tahoe. 

(4) El Dorado Water and Deep Gravel Mining Company’s water prop¬ 
erties and rights. (South fork of American River). 

(5) Blue Lakes. (Mokelumne River). 

(6) Mt. Gregory Water and Mining Company. Rubicon River. (South 
fork of middle fork of American River). 

(7) San Joaquin and San Francisco Water Works. 

(8) Feather River Water Company. 

(9) Lake Merced. (Donahue, Sharp & Mahoney.) 

The Spring Valley Water Works offered its properties for $16,000,000. 
The city made a counter offer of $11,000,000, which was declined. The prop¬ 
osition of municipal ownership was defeated by the proprietors of certain 
newspapers, who demanded that they be paid for advocating the purchase. 
The city then proposed to carry out the Blue Lakes scheme, but abundant 
rains and the completion of Upper Crystal Springs dam in the immediately 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


7 


succeeding years diverted public attention from the matter, not again to be 
taken up until the dry season, 1897-8, and succeeding seasons of deficient rain¬ 
fall, and by the charter provision making it obligatory upon the supervisors 
to make attempts every two years to acquire this necessity. 

The charter went into effect on January 8, 1900. During that year and 
the succeeding one the Board of Supervisors caused to be made by the Board 
of Public Works and the City Engineer an exhaustive study of the whole 
subject, taking into consideration all available sources of supply and the 
future needs of the city. These examinations and studies embraced: 

(1) The Spring Valley Water Works’ Supplies. 

(a) Lobos Creek. 

(b) Lake Merced. 

(c) Pilarcitos. 

(d) San Andreas and Crystal Springs. 

(e) Portola. 

(f) San Gregorio and west slope drainage. 

(g) Alameda Creek. 

(h) Pleasanton wells. 

(i) Sunol gravels. 

(j) Calaveras Creek. 

(k) San Antonio Creek. 

(2) Lake Tahoe. 

(3) Yuba River. 

(4) Feather River. 

(5) American River. 

(6) Sacramento River. 

(7) Eel River. 

(8) Cache Creek (Clear Lake). 

(9) San Joaquin River. 

(10) Stanislaus River. 

(11) Mokelumne River. 

(12) Tuolumne River. 

(13) Bay Shore gravels. 

(14) Bay Cities Water Company’s resources. 

The result was that the Tuolumne River, draining 1,501 sq. miles of the 
west slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountains, receiving a mean annual rain¬ 
fall of 20 to 50 in., and having a mean annual run-off of about 24 in., 
or nearly 2,000,000 acre-ft., was selected. This source presents the following 
unrivalled advantages: 

First. Absolute purity by reason of the uninhabitable character of the 
entire watershed tributary to the reservoirs and largely within a forest res¬ 
ervation. 

Second. Abundance, far beyond possible future demands for all pur¬ 
poses. 

Third. Largest and most numerous sites for storage. 

Fourth. Freedom from complicating “water rights.” 

Fifth. Power possibilities outside the reservation. 

It has the drawback of distance to overcome, requiring the construction 
of conduits aggregating 142 miles in length. But considering the partial pol¬ 
lution and the rapid rate of pollution to which all other sources may in the 


8 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


future be subjected, particularly nearby sources, the Tuolumne River is far 
superior to any other.* There is, however, one almost insurmountable ob¬ 
stacle. There are no private interests to be served by the acquisition and de¬ 
velopment of this source. 

The reservoir sites filed upon are: (1) Hetch Hetchy, on Tuolumne 
River, developing, with a dam 150 ft. high, 89,000,000 gal. per day for the year 
without drawing on the discharge of the river at the intake of the canal; 
and, 135,000,000 gal. per day by drawing on the river when its discharge is 
above the possible limits of future draughts. The tributary drainage area is 
452 sq. miles, varying from 5,000 to 13,000 ft., uninhabitable and presenting 
throughout ideal conditions of purity; (2) Lake Eleanor, on the creek of 
same name, and developing 57,000,000 gal. per day for seven months of the 
year. The tributary area is from 4,700 to 12,000 feet in elevation and 84 sq. 
miles in extent, uninhabitable and presenting likewise ideal conditions of pur¬ 
ity. An additional area of 103 sq. miles from Cherry River and of the same 
character can readily be made tributary to Lake Eleanor, and its storage 
greatly increased by a higher dam. 

There are thus over 630 sq. miles of the most ideal catchment areas trib¬ 
utary to these matchless reservoirs, and the capacities of these reservoirs are 
capable of being doubled by dams well within the possibilities of the sites and 
tributary areas. Moreover, the discharges from these areas are far in excess 
of the maximum capacities of the reservoirs, and other excellent reservoirs 
are available throughout the drainage area for such other industries as tuiure 
needs may require. Under maximum reservoir development there must still 
be a large waste from the Tuolumne watershed. 

The two reservoir sites necessary to utilize a portion of the waste flood 
waters from this source were surveyed, filed upon and application for the nec¬ 
essary rights made to the Department of the Interior. These rights, by reason 
of the lack of a precedent, were not applied for in the name of the city, but 
in that of its mayor, who transferred them to the city. It was considered 
necessary to make these surveys “surreptitiously,” but the laws and regulations 
controlling the mode and time of making them were complied with. If it had 
been known that the city authorities looked to the waste waters of Tuolumne 
River as a source of supply, the legalized blackmail of a prior applicant or 
appropriator would have been put in force; as these can move more rapidly 
than the city, trammeled as it is by the requirements of the charter and laws. 
As the result, these rights were filed upon without further cost to the city 
than those imposed by law.*j* 


*The engineers reaching this decision had a combined personal and pro¬ 
fessional knowledge of the available sources aggregating more than one hun¬ 
dred years, and no well-informed and unprejudiced member of the profession 
has as yet even partialy investigated the subject without endorsing the wisdom 
and soundness of the selection. 

-j- Since these filings were made some five or six “locations” and 
“filings” have been made by private parties and corporations looking most 
probably to the time when this city or some one else will have to “buy them 
off.” But if the city’s applications be granted, no other rights, either prior or 
subsequent to April, 1902, will have to be acquired. Only rights of way for 
pipes and small properties within the reservoir space will have to be acquired. 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


9 


These rights were denied by the Secretary of the Interior on January 20, 
1903. . He later granted a rehearing, and again denied them December 22, 1903, 
alleging that the law of October 1, 1901, did not authorize such grant and 
suggesting an appeal to Congress. 

Strong opposition was put forward to the granting of these rights, nota¬ 
bly by the Spring Valley Water Company, which sent its Chief Engineer on 
to Washington, and he obtained an audience with the Secretary of the Interior 
and appeared in opposition to the application of the city before its officers 
were apprised of such audience and prior to the date set for the rehearing. 
This company also, through and by the same officer, worked up a strong op¬ 
position in Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts, making extravagant and 
false representations to the landowners of these districts, some of whom, under 
his able tutelage, have made and published statements to the effect that San 
Francisco’s utilization of waste water from this source “would ruin their 
homes and farms and convert them into deserts.” 

When it is considered that these districts aggregate 402 sq. miles and that 
the mean annual run-off of 2 ft. from 1,501 sq. miles would cover the districts 
with between 3 and 4 ft. of water, in addition to the 12 in. they generally 
receive, and that no possible development could economically make use of the 
above run-off, the unreasonable and false character of these objections is 
manifest. 

Upon the denial of these rights in December, 1903, a bill was drafted and 
introduced in Congress and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. This 
bill and its sponsors, the representatives from San Francisco, could get no 
standing before this committee. 

The city authorities, not satisfied with the ruling of the Secretary of the 
Interior, presented the matter to the President in February, 1905. He, not 
knowing the complications of San Francisco water matters, unfortunately re¬ 
ferred the matter to the Hon. the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. That 
official rendered an opinion which, for illogical conclusion, will stand as a 
shining example. He completely overthrows the basis upon which the Sec¬ 
retary of the Interior founds his denials, but expresses his concurrence in and 
justifies such denial. The city and county attorney, still dissatisfied with this 
opinion, caused the matter to be again brought to the attention of the Presi¬ 
dent, who furnished the city and county’s representative with copies of the 
correspondence and requested that the argument for the city be presented in 
such form that it could be referred to the Attorney General of the United 
States. 

On July 27, 1905, an elaborate statement and argument for the city was 
placed in the hands of the President; but one of the secretaries, not knowing 
the exact nature of the paper, again referred it to the Secretary of the Inte¬ 
rior. Upon having attention called to this error, the paper was recalled and 
referred to the Attorney General. 

On October 28, 1905, that official rendered an opinion in which he advises 
the President as follows. He quotes the law of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 
790), providing for rights of way through certain parks: 

“ ‘That the Secretary of the Interior be authorized and empowered, under 
general regulations to be fixed by him, to permit the use of rights of way 
through the public lands, Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National parks, 

California, for . canals . reservoirs for . the supplying of 

water for domestic, public or any beneficial uses.’ 





10 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


“I have carefully considered the language of the act as above quoted and 
am clearly of the opinion that Congress thereby intended to vest in the Secre¬ 
tary a discretionary authority to grant or refuse applications of this kind. 

“I would, therefore, respectfully suggest that, if you desire further con¬ 
sideration or different action, the matter may be taken up with the Secretary 
of the Interior.” 

No notice, so far as the writer is aware, was furnished to the city or its 
advocates of this letter until it was unearthed by Mr. James C. Hooe, of 
Washington, at the request of Hon. James D. Phelan, during April, 1906. 

Between the decision of the Attorney General of the United States that 
the existing law of February 15, 1901, was adequate, and the publicity of this 
opinion in May, 1906, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 6949 
of January 24, 1906. This was at once seized upon by Mr. J. C. Needham, 
Congressman from the Sixth district of California, who represented to the 
Secretary of the Interior that Resolution No. 6949 was an abanodnment of 
San Francisco’s rights under the application of April, 1902. This was denied 
by the Board of Supervisors, but subsequent actions proved this denial to be 
merely a subterfuge. 

The history of steps lately taken is so fresh in the minds of the public 
that but a brief reference to it is necessary. 

The Board of Supervisors in the beginning of 1906 practically had before 
them the whole subject. A New York promoter, Mr. Cragin, offered as an 
auxiliary source to the existing supply El Dorado Deep Gravel and Water 
Company’s properties on the south fork of American River, reinforced by the 
stored water of Echo Lakes, diverted by tunnel from Lake Tahoe drainage 
basin. The offer was for $35,000,000 and included the present source (whether 
by authority or not is not known to the writer). 

This offer was not definitely considered. The Bay Cities Water Company, 
which had previously submitted a project to supply water from the slopes ad¬ 
jacent to Santa Clara Valley, then submitted a proposition embracing the 
South Fork properties of the El Dorado Company and certain rights to reser- 
voiis and claims on Cosumnes River. This proposition was reported upon 
by the City Engineer in July, 1906. From his unpublished report the follow¬ 
ing is summarized: 

The sources offered are of two characters: 

(1) The stored and flood waters from Silver Fork, Slippery Ford Fork, 
Silver'Lake and Echo Lakes; pure and desirable waters now in use in and 
around Placerville. 

(2) Stored and flood waters of Sly Park and Buck’s Bar, reservoirs 
draining from inferior areas, large fractions of which are in private owner¬ 
ship. 

The total drainage areas on the South Fork are 243.5 sq. miles, of which 
only 44 sq. miles are tributary to storage within its basin. The run-off from 
the remaining 200 sq. miles must be diverted by canal and tunnel between 18 
and 19 miles long into the drainage basin of Cosumnes River for storage. It 
is manifest that a large portion of the run-off thus proposed to be utilized 
must be lost, as a mountain canal to divert the maximum discharge is not 
reasonably practical. 

On Cosumnes River and tributaries there is a total drainage area of 160.51 
sq. miles, of which 14.43 sq. miles are tributary to Sly Park reservoir, and 
the remainder, 146.98, to Buck’s Bar reservoir. The run-off from these areas 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


11 


must be reinforced by that from South Fork of American River. This brings 
into service about 404 sq. miles of drainage area, about one-half of which 
must be utilized by diversion canals, and one-fifth of which is in private 
ownership, with several villages, the sewerage of which must by gravity flow 
reach the lower reservoir. 

The conditions, therefore, granting that the complicated rights and titles 
shall be settled advantageously, are not comparable to the 635 sq. miles of 
uninhabitable area tributary to Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor reservoirs of 
the Tuolumne. 

The Bay Cities properties and claims have been thus fully presented and 
compared for the reason that the present Board of Supervisors have rejected 
all other sources and selected this one at the price offered, namely, $10,500,000, 
as the one to be offered to the voters of the city. 

The Board of Supervisors in 1902-4 called for offers of the Spring Valley 
Water Works and properties. But the requests were either technically avoided 
or ignored. 

There have thus been four attempts by the city to gain possession of its 
water supply: (1) in 1871-2; (2) 1874-5; (3) 1876-7; and in 1900-6. What 
the result will be depends upon the intelligent and unselfish action of its citi¬ 
zens and officials. But judging from the supreme indifference with which the 
majority of the citizens of San Francisco look upon the situation, and the 
skill and cunning with which corporate control is managed, there appears lit¬ 
tle hope for any betterment either in the purity and abundanec of the supply 
or the rate at which it is furnished. 

There were gross and irremediable blunders made by the Spring Valley 
Water Company in sending its chief engineer on to Washington to oppose the 
applications of the city for reservoir rights of way, and in the importation of 
false representation of facts into the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts. 
It is possible that the more thoughtful and far-seeing of its officers realize 
these blunders. Such methods have convinced many conservative minds, pre¬ 
viously inclined to treat openly and generously with the company, that they 
have an unscrupulous monopoly to deal with, which is ready to adopt any 
means to thwart the ultimate good of San Francisco for its own selfish ends. 
The effect of this action may prolong monopoly ownership of this necessity, 
but it may eventually be the crowning act which will cause San Francisco 
voters to select some other source. 

THE STRUGGLE FOR PURITY. 

In addition to the struggle for ownership, there is going on a more vital 
one for the purity of the supply. As the regions around our great cities in¬ 
evitably become more densely occupied, the sources once pure become pol¬ 
luted. Whether this pollution comes from denuded mountains, cattle ranges 
and pastures, from farms and barnyards, from villages and towns, or from 
manufactories and mines, the results are to render the earlier selected sources 
unfit for domestic use. Not until the penalty is paid in human suffering and 
death is this pollution remedied, and even then the cost in dollars is frequently 
pitted against the cost in lives, at the expense of the latter. In notable instances 
on this coast, such as Portland and Seattle, the lesson is thoroughly learned 
and the purest water, at any cost, is introduced, with a result which these 
cities would not exchange at any price. 

The remedies lie along five general lines: (1) A change of source, as in 
the instances just cited; (2) storage of a partially polluted supply and expos- 


12 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


ure in the reservoir for as long a period as possible, as in Boston, New \ork, 
Baltimore, Richmond, etc.; (3) sand filtration, as in Berlin, Washington and 
as under way in Philadelphia, etc.; (4) sedimentation and treatment with floc- 
culents or astringent salts of iron or alumina, and precipitating these with 
lime, etc.; (5) bactericidal processes involving the use of ozone. 

If the first of these can be satisfactorily accomplished by the utliization of 
an uninhabited or sparsely settled area or a deep underground supply, it is 
far preferable, as a water supply which does not require a chemist s and a 
bacteriologist’s certificate as to purity is best. 

(2) Storage in reservoirs for at least two seasons is satisfactory where the 
drainage area is reasonably clean, but easily borders on the dangerous, as in 
Baltimore. 

(3) Sand filtration, where properly applied, is highly satisfactory, but 
costly, and requires the most conscientious and skilled care. 

(4) The same is true of treatment with flocculents. 

(5) The use of ozone has been found highly efficient in France, Holland, 
Belgium and Germany, and a test plant in Philadelphia thoroughly purifies 
1,000,000 gal. per day of the highly dangerous water of Schuylkill River. The 
prime element in this process is the cheap generation of ozone. The efficiency 
is unquestioned when compared even with sand filtration. 

On all of the purifying methods the engineer is confronted by innumerable 
patents; even in the old sand filtration process there are recent patents for 
preliminary filtration, modes of removing and washing sand, etc., whilst in the 
use of flocculents and ozone the number of patents is legion. 

In meeting the dangers and penalties of impure water, resort is had to a 
partial use of distilled and bottled spring waters. These are distributed in all 
cities to an extent which imposes a heavy expense. During recent repeated 
visits to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, the 
writer endeavored to get some idea of this expense. The figures ascertainable 
were far from complete, but indicated that not less than $8,000,000 is the an¬ 
nual expenditure in the cities named, which, capitalized, represents a principal 
of $200,000,000. If to this be added the cost of boiling the water furnished by 
these municipalities, the capital would exceed the value of the combined mu¬ 
nicipal plants of these cities. 

Even at this expense the consequences of an impure municipal water sup¬ 
ply are but partly escaped. 

There is just starting a struggle on new lines, namely, that against an 
excess of the mineral or soluble contents of the water. 

It has been found that certain salts, notably of lime, alumina, silica and 
magnesia, when present in amounts from 20 to 35 gr. per gal. and when con¬ 
stantly used, result in obscure heart and kidney diseases. The former is pe¬ 
culiarly prevalent on this coast. These organs, under the constant strain of 
eliminating or of working under the disadvantage of an excess of mineral 
matter in the blood, yield in middle age to these fatal troubles. It has long 
been considered profitable to remove these salts from water used in boilers, 
but to remove them from the water consumed in the more delicate human 
system is not profitable in coin and is only paid for in life and health. 

Many regard 40 gr. per gal. as a safe limit, but the writer is inclined to 
reduce this limit to one-third or even one-fourth this amount, if reasonably 
possible. 

The great improvement in health in Portland since the introduction of 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


13 


water of the highest standard of purity warrants this rigid limit. 

This struggle is, therefore, not ended when a city gains control. New 
York had the battle of its life to prevent the Ramapo Water Company from 
wresting control from its hands and placing an enormous tribute upon every 
home and every industry within its borders. San Francisco’s struggle, we 
have seen, commenced in 1871 and appears no nearer an end at the dawn of 
1907. 

In all of these struggles it is manifest that the source of political cor¬ 
ruption is not in official life, but in the body politic, in the ranks of those who 
pose as good citizens and, as directors and officers of great corporations, en¬ 
joying or desirous of securing monopolies, prey on the public through the 
non-official “political boss.” 

This creature is not the natural product of our political system, but the 
outgrowth and necessary adjunct of monopoly. When an official is false to 
his trust, there is almost always this go-between, this procurer, and his master, 
the holder of or the seeker for a monopoly. 

In New York it was the firm stand of one official that saved that metrop¬ 
olis its water supply. He fought alone until the public could come to his aid, 
and it took years of struggle to win. 

In San Francisco it has been and is incivism and neglect of public duty 
which has lengthened out the fight to over a third of a century. However 
zealous groups of officials may have been at various stages of this struggle, 
the indifference of the public generally is the true cause of our repeated fail¬ 
ures. This indifference is taken advantage of by those who have, or believe 
they have, rights for sale to the city. 

We have a marked example in Oakland, where, after a, judicial determina¬ 
tion of the value at a figure probably double the actual investment, the 
“works” have been “capitalized” at nearly six times the judicially fixed value. 

Whether a similar fate awaits San Francisco remains to be seen, although 
the existing works are already capitalized at a figure sixteen millions of dol¬ 
lars greater than the cost of the best of the Sierra sources. * 

In conclusion : Since these affairs are undertaken in our country only 
when a majority of the voters has knowingly or ignorantly expressed its deci¬ 
sion, the details of these struggles should be known to every citizen of every 
municipality. These details are essential facts of which he must be cognizant 
in order to form a correct judgment as to the most important function which 
his municipality has to perform. When it is considered that “the heatlh of a 
city depends more on its water than on all the rest of its eatables and drink¬ 
ables put together,” that the health of successive generations of mothers and 
children depends upon the purity of the water supply of the home, then, in¬ 
deed, does the source of this water become to the civil engineer “the holy of 
holies.” Then does this prime factor, purity, stand forth in strong light, and 
the minor factors—What does it cost? What per cent, do the stock or bonds 
yield?—shrink into insignificance. When these factors are considered in their 
true relation, municipal ownership of this necessity of existence and health is 
the only solution. The smaller questions of street railroads, telephone, gas 
and electric power can well be let alone until a city can say, We own our 
water supply. It is pure and its sources unpollutable; it is abundant in every 
home within our limits. 

MARSDEN MANSON. 

Reprinted from Journal of the Associated Engineering Societies, 
March, 1907. 


14 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY SOURCES. 

San Francisco, November 24, 1902. 

To the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, 

Of the City and County of San Francisco. 

Gentlemen—The Board of Public Works is directed by resolution No. 
2440 of the Board of Supervisors to report which ‘‘sources of water are 
available and suitable for the purpose of outlining in general the relative 
availability and adequacy of each source and to suggest whatever additional 
data for the selection of the most desirable source are necessary. ’ ’ 

Substantial compliance with this requirement would be a reference to 
the Water Supply Investigation Progress Report, dated August 12, 1901, in 
which the merits of the several sources of supply are presented. Some 
further discussion of the subject seems now to be called for on account of 
the persistency with which the proponents of some of the projects press 
their demands to have their sources of water declared available. 

The charter prescribes that “In securing estimates of the original 
cost of construction and completion of water works by the city and county, 
the Supervisors must procure and place on file plans and estimates of the 
cost of obtaining from all of the several available sources a sufficient and 
permanent supply of good, pure water.” 

WHAT IS AN AVAILABLE SOURCE? 

According to Webster, “to avail” generally signifies to have strength, 
force or efficiency sufficient to accomplish the object. “Available”—in the 
sense in which used in the charter section above quoted—may therefore 
be taken to mean “having efficiency sufficient to accomplish the object.” 
The object to be accomplished in the case of the source of water supply is 
to furnish a sufficient amount of pure, wholesome water at a reasonable 
cost. 

Any source of supply, the project for whose utilization involves the 
delivery of an undesirable water, may be regarded as not available as long 
as a desirable water can be obtained at a reasonable cost. Any source of 
supply which, singly or in combination with others, fails in yielding contin¬ 
uously a sufficient supply, is also to be rated as not available. Any source 
of supply from which water cannot be delivered at a reasonable cost may 
likewise be regarded as not available. 

It follows from this that a final determination of available sources 
involves a consideration of the relative merits of those sources which in the 
light of information at hand at the beginning of an investigation come 
within the above definition of availability as applied to i oca i conditions. 
It also follows that according to the relative advantages and desirability 
of the several sources of supply, they will take rank and that in any list 
prepared according to rank, there must be some point below which all other 
sources of supply may reasonably be considered not available. 

In comparing the various sources that have from time to time been 
suggested, it is at once apparent, even though it be for the time being 
assumed that all are available, that there must be a great difference in 
the degree of their availability. The sources are not equidistant from 
San Francisco. The obstacles to be overcome in bringing the water to San 


15 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Francisco may in one case be trifling, in another case formidable. When 
that source of supply has been determined which is least available in any 
given list, another can surely be found which will stand a little lower in 
the scale. It follows, therefore, that as applied to sources of water supply 
the term ‘ 1 available ’ ’ is not necessarily applicable to every source of supply 
which could be utilized if it were the only source, but applies strictly 
only to the few sources which rank highest, not in the sense of facility of 
utilization, but in the broader sense of best fulfilling all requirements. 

Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, the process 
of elimination can be carried on until but a single source of supply remains 
under consideration, being singled out and becoming in fact then the 
only available source. 

So long, however, as a number of sources, by reason of some advantage 
which each has over the others in the matter of quality of water,! its 
quantity, reliability of service and cost, are of such rank that it remains 
doubtful to which the first place should be accorded, these sources are all 
to be considered available. 

Difficulty arises in determining which sources so far outrank others as 
to deserve special consideration. So long as this is indeterminate, all 
sources which have any reasonable prospect of being ranked first should 
be considered available sources. None others need be considered except to 
the extent that may be necessary to show their inferiority. 

Sources which by reason of remoteness, by reason of insufficiency of 
supply, cost of utilization and operation, or unusual risk in construction 
or permanency of service, bear a decidedly unfavorable relation to other 
sources, should—when these facts are brought out by competent authorities— 
be classed among the sources not available. 

In the case of San Francisco, there is no single source of supply so 
pre-eminently available that it could without question rule out others from 
comparison. Those sources which have the advantage of being near at 
home have disadvantages, chiefly relating to quality and quantity, so that 
a consideration of the question from many standpoints has become necessary 
before a conclusion could be reached and before it became possible to state 
with any precision which sources of supply have sufficient predominant 
points of merit to justify a final comparison for the determination of 
the best. 

BASIS OF COMPARISON. 

The availability of a source of water supply, as above stated, is deter¬ 
mined by the quality of the water delivered, its quantity, the reliability 
of service and cost. 

The first requisite beyond question is quality. Given any two sources 
of supply—one of which is pure and wholesome, so located that its con¬ 
tamination is well-nigh impossible, and another which is so laden with 
impurities and refuse and is so liable to pollution that it can not safely be 
used without filtration—and there will be no question whatever as to which 
of the two is the more desirable. Were there no choice and only a water 
of the second class obtainable at reasonable expense, then, as a matter of 
necessity, the second would, with due precautinary measures and after 
purification, be declared, and justly so, an available source of supply. 

Sometimes a mere capitalization of the increased operating expense 


16 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


involved in purifying such a water or in guarding against possible injurous 
effects of contamination, added to cost of works, will allow such a water 
even from the financial standpoint alone to be less available than a water 
naturally above suspicion, but obtainable only at a greater first cost. 

It is generally the case, however, that the purest, most desirable waters 
are remote from the centers of population. They are generally to be sought 
in high, uninhabitable mountain regions. The centers of population are 
usually at relatively low altitudes, frequently at or near sea-level, at a 
considerable distance from the regions which by reason of their inaccessi¬ 
bility or remoteness are desirable collecting grounds for water for domestic 
use. San Francisco is no exception to this rule. 

When it happens that the cost of a very pure, desirable water greatly 
exceeds the cost of development and utilization of a nearby less desirable 
source of supply, then there may be some difficulty in determining which 
source is entitled to preference, and this determination should take into 
account the financial ability of the consumers and the evident destiny of 
the region to be served. In other words, if within reach at a reasonable 
cost, the water of unquestioned purity should be preferred and is to be 
considered more available than a water obtainable at less expense, but 
the use of which might under untoward circumstances give rise to some 
great calamity. 

Another feature to be considered as having some bearing upon the 
availability of any source of supply is the reliability of service. Not only 
is it necessary that a sufficient quantity of water of good quality be obtain¬ 
able from any source that is to be considered available, but the works 
for the utilization of this water for its delivery to reservoirs in or very 
near the city and its distribution to the consumers must be of a reliable 
character. The water supply must be an unfailing one, not alone by reason 
of its abundance at its source, but also by reason of the safety of the 
works for its delivery. The utilization of any undeveloped source may 
always be considered to involve some risk. Obstacles of more or less 
magnitude must be overcome in developing the water and in conducting 
it to the intended place of use. Formidable obstacles may involve great 
risk and great uncertainty during construction. 

Constructed works, too, are maintained at more or less risk; they are 
liable to injury. Those least liable to injury and most readily repaired 
when injured are the safest. To the extent of capacity actually utilized 
and demonstrated, established works of proven efficiency should therefore 
receive preference and rank highest in the scale of availability. Quality 
of water, its quantity, structural character of works, costs of operation, 
of maintenance and of renewals, are, however, factors that must not be 
overlooked in comparing an established system with any other project. 

It follows, therefore, that remoteness of a supply is a disadvantage 
and that between any two practically equally distant sources, the one is to 
be preferred which can be made available by the most reliable and the 
most permanent works. 

In this connection, there is also to be considered the fact that in one 
case works may be of a character whose reliability has been established 
by experience and practice, and concerning the construction of which and 
the character of service, quality and quantity of water, no 
reasonable doubts can be entertained. Such works are to be 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


17 


preferred to works not yet constructed and particularly to works which 
involve departure from ordinary practice and whose execution and main" 
tenance is at more than ordinary risk. 

Many other things may be brought into the comparison, as, for instance, 
the facility for a gradual increase of the capacity of conduits or other 
appliances required for the delivery of the water, in order that the delivery 
may keep pace with the growth and growing needs of the municipality. A 
system that must at once be constructed of a capacity to meet the probable 
requirement fifty or more years in the future may prove relatively expensive, 
and this may be rated as a disadvantage when compared with one which 
permits an installation which, though adapted to immediate requirements, 
is still capable of expansion as occasion arises. 

To permit of a fair comparison of the availability of several sources 
of supply, it is finally necessary to assume all work to be of the same 
standard of excellence; so far as practicable of the same materials and 
the same workmanship, and, therefore, in the same class so far as conditions 
permit, principally in the matter of etficiency and durability. 

In making the financial comparison, due regard should be had to the 
cost of operation, maintenance and repairs. Allowance should also be made 
for any greater expense occasioned by the use of more perishable materials 
m one case than in another, when conditions make it impracticable to 
Dring the several projects to the same standard. 

Based on data at command, these principles permit comparison of the 
various sources of water supply that have been suggested for San Francisco. 

Surveys have not been made, nor indeed are they necessary for every 
project that has been suggested. It is often possible, by comparison, to 
eliminate a project, to show its inferiority to some other so conclusively 
that it were but folly to expend the funds of the city in working out the 
details of such a project. 

When a source of supply is inadequate, it may yet, by combination 
with other sources, become available. The several sources thus combined 
should then, as a matter of course, be treated collectively. 

All sources of supply whose conduits must cross San Francisco Bay 
are less desirable from the standpoint of reliability of service than those 
whose conduits enter the city from the south. Months may be required 
to effect repairs when they become necessary. The degree of liability to 
accident in such a structure as a bay crossing, can not be stated in advance 
with any degree of precision. The element of uncertainty which this feature 
of any water works involves renders the projects which embody it less 
attractive than projects from which it can be eliminated. 

In the one case, except by recourse to additional water development 

and storage on the Peninsula southward of San Francisco, it may, there¬ 

fore, be well-nigh impossible to reasonably safeguard the continuity of 
water delivery. In the other case, reliable nearby storage facilities can 

be secured on the line of the works. In the former case, the risk of 

successful construction and maintenance of a structure under the bay will 
always remain an undesirable feature. 

THE SUGGESTED SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY. 

Sources of water supply which have at various times been suggested 


18 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


as available for San Francisco are the following: 

The Spring Valley Water Works sources—Lobos Creek (Mountain 
Lake), Lake Merced, Pilarcitos, San Andreas and Crystal Springs reservoirs, 
Portola (Searsville) reservoir, Alameda Creek, Sunol Valley gravels and 
Pleasanton Artesian Wells, Calaveras Valley. 

Mokelumne River—Blue Lakes, Amador Canal, Standard Electric Com¬ 
pany’s system. 

Clear Lake. 

American River—Rubicon River (South Fork of Middle Fork of 
American), South Fork, Middle Fork, Junction of North and Middle Forks, 
North Fork. 

Lake Tahoe. 

Yuba River—South Fork, Junction of North and South Forks, North 
Fork. 

Feather River. 

Eel River. 

Putah Creek. 

Ocean Slope Peninsula Creeks. 

Bay Shore Artesian Waters. 

Sacramento River. 

San Joaquin River. 

Stanislaus River. 

Tuolumne River. 


FILTRATION. 

To some degree, as appears from the above enumeration, a comparison 
of sources of supply, w T hose water to be at all acceptable must first be 
subjected to some treatment such as filtration, with other sources whose 
water is of unquestioned purity, has become necessary. Something is 
therefore to be said of the desirability of a filtered water. 

The Board of Health of Massachusetts, the thoroughness of whose 
investigations is acknowledged, in its report of 1895, says that although 
it had been shown that “waters as polluted as those of the Merrimac (at 
Lawrence), can be effectually filtered and rendered safe for domestic use, 
in the opinion of the board it will be better to pay more for a supply from 
a source that has not been polluted.” 

Messrs. Benezette Williams and George Y. Wisner, in the majority 
report of the Commission of Hydraulic Engineers, on the Water Supply 
of the City of St. Louis, in 1902, make the following statement: 

‘ ‘ The members of the Commission visited and observed the operation 
of the sedimentation and filter plants at East St. Louis, Kansas City, St. 
Joseph, Omaha, Davenport, Rock Island and Quincy. While the water 
at all of these plants is greatly improved by the treatment it receives, 
an absolutely clear and wholesome effluent is not generally obtained. In 
fact, aside from a few experimental plants, operated on a small scale by 
experts, there are no filter plants in the United States where a perfectly 
clear and wholesome effluent is continuously produced from water similar 
to that of the Missisippi River at St. Louis.” 

The minority member of this Commission, Allen Hazen, in speaking 
of the quality of the waters available for the supply of St. Louis, says: 


WAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


19 


“The water from the Meramec Spring, as we saw it, was perfectly clear. 
We are credibly informed that; it is sometimes turbid. We have no reliable 
information as to how turbid it gets or how long the turbidity last. The 
w r ater from the impounding reservoir will hardly have a turbidity less than 
that corresponding to from 5 to 20 parts per million of suspended matters, 
and this will be so fine as not to be removed in the conduits and reservoirs. 
The filters are designed to give an entirely clear effluent. 

‘ ‘ In its sanitary quality, I believe the purified river water to be fully 
equal to the gravity supply. It should be remembered that the water from 
the Meramec Spring is apparently largely surface water from the Dry Fork, 
which has come through caverns without filtration and without long storage, 
and is subject to the contaminations of a surface supply without the safe¬ 
guard of having to pass through large impounding reservoirs. 

“The physical appearance of the filtered river water will be best. 
For mechanical purposes, it will be as good. For boilers, it will be less desir¬ 
able, but I do not believe that the difference will be great. 

“All things considered, I believe that the quality of the purified 
water will be at least equal to that of the water which can be obtained 
from the Meramec Spring and river. ” 

In this statement, the eminent engineer and pronounced advocate of 
the filtration system goes no further than to claim that the filtered water 
will be at least equal to a water which is subject to contaminations of a 
surface supply, which is not required to pass through large impounding 
reservoirs and which is at times turbid. The collecting ground of this 
surface supply has a population averaging from 11 to 27 per square mile 
for the three principal forks of Meremac River. 

It should require no argument to demonstrate the soundness of the 
conclusion reached by the Massachusetts State Board of Health that unless 
conditions for the utilization of water that must be filtered to prepare 
it for use are exceptionally favorable, when compared with those for the 
utilization of a water for which first rank of quality without filtration 
may be claimed, the choice between sources must fall to the naturally 
pure water. 

Expense, so long as the same is within reason and not a burden upon 
the community, should not be spared in obtaining the best water that 
can be had. 

In examining these and other reports that have been made by experts 
upon the water supply projects for various American cities, it is found that 
where waters requiring filtration are recommended in preference to moun¬ 
tain waters, that the mountain source falls far short of what can be offered 
to San Francisco from the high mountain regions of the Sierras. Thus Mr. 
Rudolph Hering, Joseph M. Wilson and Samuel N. Gray, the Engineer 
Commissioners reporting on the water supply of Philadelphia, in 1899, in 
speaking of the available mountain sources, say: 

“It was considered that the waters collected from the affluents of 
the Delaware and Lehigh Rivers in the Blue Mountains, and from the 
Upper Perkiomen Creek, could be used in their natural condition. While 
these natural sources are the best obtainable at a reasonable cost, and 
while their average standard of purity is high, it must be remembered 
that a guarantee against occasional and temporary pollution of the water 
by disease germs from men and animals, cannot be given for such large 


20 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


and exposed watersheds; nor can an occasional taste, due to vegetable 
matter, be entirely avoided. ’ ’ 

They also say: “In view of the recent progress in the methods of 
water purification, and of the growing demand for better water, it seems 
not at all improbable that water procured from the Blue Mountains might 
in the future require filtration before being delivered to the city, thus 
adding materially to the expense of the project ,” and “where ample 
supplies of relatively pure water are obtainable at sufficient elevations 
and within short distances of the community to be supplied, it will usually 
be found best to take advantage of them; but where, as in our case, these 
sources are found at long distance from the city, it is necessary to estimate 
very carefully and to balance still more carefully the relative cost and 
advantages of different methods. ’ ’ 

Mr. Allen Hazen, as Consulting Engineer to the Filtration Commission 
of Pittsburgh, in 1899, in giving reasons for recommending the adoption 
of a filtered water supply, says, referring to the expenses of operation and 
maintenance of water works for that city: “The aggregate estimated 
charges for fifty years are $34,000,000 for the gravity supply and $23,000,000 
for the present supply (pumping Allegheny River water), with filtration. 
The gravity supply will thus cost in that time 48 per cent, more than the 
present supply with filtration. 

“An important difference between the schemes is the way in which 
money is required. In the gravity scheme the capital expenditure must 
be met practically all at one time whether the full amount of water is 
wanted or not. With filtration and pumping, the capital expenditure 
required at first, although considerable, is only a sixth of that required 
for the gravity scheme, and the operating expenses are only incurred as 
water is required and in proportion to the amount needed. ’ ’ 

In these cases doubtful purity of the supply from the mountains and 
the very great increase of first cost of works have been deemed sufficient 
reasons for recommending the use of waters which are close at home, prac¬ 
tically within the limits of the city, and which require only pumping and 
puiification to make them acceptable. 

WATER PRODUCTION OF CATCHMENT AREAS. 

In comparing the yielding capacity of different sources of water, it 
is as important to apply a common standard as in the case of the character 
of works for the delivery and distribution of the water. Several cases 
present themselves. 

1. The water available may so far exceed the required quantity that 
yield will without question be determined by the capacity of the works. 
Examples in this class are Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. 

2. The works may be dependent upon storage, in which case (a) The 
yield is to be determined on the basis of storage capacity when watershed 
area is large and rainfall ample to fill reservoirs in years of minimum rain¬ 
fall; (b) The yield is to be determined on the basis of watershed area 
when the storage capacity is equal to or exceeds the run-off in years of 
maximum rainfall. 

3. The yield is to be determined on the basis of the natural flow of 
a stream and available storage. 

4. The yield may be practically indeterminable, as in the case of 
artesian waters. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


21 


The peninsula reservoirs of the Spring Valley Water Works have 
aggregate capacities in excess of the annual run-off from their combined 
tributary areas m years of maximum rainfall. Experience has demon¬ 
strated that the areas tributary to these reservoirs can not be relied on 
to net more than 182,500,000 gallons of water per square mile of watershed 
area per year. 

The maximum production of any area similarly located and w T ith similar 
climatic conditions can not therefore be expected to exceed this amount. 
It can not be as large unless storage facilities are ample to restrain the 
entire run-off in a season of maximum rainfall. 

The rainfall (Spring Valley Water Works records) in the watersheds 
of the reservoirs is in the neighborhood of 40 inches per year, with a 
range from about 20 to about 80 inches. The run-off expressed in depth 
over the entire collecting may be noted approximately at 2 inches for a 
year of minimum rain, at 10 inches for a normal year and at 38 inches 
for a year of maximum precipitation. 

For the conditions which prevail in the Sierra Nevada, in the region 
tributary to the headwaters of Yuba and American Rivers, the minimum, 
normal and maximum precipitation may be noted at about 30, 60 and 120 
inches, and the corresponding run-off at 10, 36 and 90 inches. These amounts 
of precipitation and run-off decrease for streams further south, the run-off 
depth for Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers being preliminarily assumed 
for seasons with little, normal and heavy rainfall respectively at 5, 14 and 
47 inches. For streams intermediate between American and Stanislaus 
Rivers intermediate values may be assumed. 

SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATED IN 1900 BY BOARD 

OF SUPERVISORS. 

When the water supply investigation was inaugurated in 1900 by the 
Board of Supervisors under charter requirement, lack of funds made it 
necessary to restrict the first inquiry to a call for proposals to furnish 
this city with water or with water works. Many offers and suggestions 
were made in response to this call. 

After consideration of these by the Public Utilities Committee of the 
Board of Supervisors, a resolution was passed directing the City Engineer 
to make plans and to furnish estimates of cost of the original construction 
and completion, by the City and County of San Francisco, of water works 
having their sources of supply as follows: 

1. From Lake Tahoe. 

2. From the Forks of the American River. 

3. From the Forks of the Yuba River. 

4. From the Feather River. 

This resolution might be considered an indication of the conclusions of 
the Supervisors, in the light of the information then before them, relating 
to the sources of supply which they considered available, except for the 
fact that the enumeration of sources of supply is evidently incomplete 
and the designation of the sources is indefinite. Had it been intended to 
enumerate all available sources, it is probable that some attention would 
have been paid to to the Spring Valley Water Works and the sources under 


22 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


the control of this company, and such important Sierra Nevada streams 
as Mokelumne, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers would not have been over¬ 
looked. Authorization to examine some of these sources was subsequently 
granted upon special recommendation of the Board of Public Works. 

The designation “ Forks of American River” is indefinite. It indi¬ 
cates no specific source. The American River has a North Fork, a Middle 
Fork and a South Fork. Its Middle Fork has a North Fork and a South 
Fork, and its South Fork has a Silver Fork. The designation indicates no 
particular points of diversion on these several branches, neither has any 
scheme been suggested for utilizing their combined flow. 

The same lack of definiteness is to be noted for the source of supply 
entitled in the resolution “The Forks of Yuba River.” Yuba River has 
a South Fork, a Middle Fork and a North Fork, of which the North Fork 
again has its own South Fork and North Fork. In the case of this river, 
however, one project that had been suggested referred specifically to the 
junction of the North and Middle Forks, and another to Alabama Bar on 
the North Fork. It is possible that these points of diversion were intended 
to be designated in the resolution. 

THE SPRING VALLEY WATER WORKS. 

The essential facts relating to the Spring Valley Water Works system 
and its sources of water supply have already been presented in the Progress 
Report of 1901. These established works can not be ignored when an 
earnest move is made toward the acquisition by the city of municipal 
water works. In their entirety they are comparable with the other projects 
that are or have been under consideration. 

No proposal has been submitted for a sale of the properties of the 
Spring Valley Water Works or any portion thereof to the city, and no 
definite project for the acquisition of these works has yet been formulated. 

Such a project would necessarily differ materially in some of the most 
important features of water works from the other projects under discussion. 
In the first place, the works have the advantage of being already con¬ 
structed and in actual use. They arc supplying between 25,000,000 and 
30,000,000 gallons of water per day. Their distributing system, which, 
with its 400 miles of pipe, reaches every important establishment in the 
city, and from which some 50,000 private services are supplied, will either 
come into use with any other project, or it must be practically duplicated 
in case that it be not made part of the municipal system. Other portions 
of their works, even though their water sources be ignored, would still 
prove valuable to safeguard the supply from distant sources. 

In the second place, the sources of water utilized by the Spring Valley 
Water Works are near at home. The advantage of short lines of conduits is, 
however, in large measure offset by the disadvantage of widely scattered 
works, and the necessity for taking unusual precautions to prevent pollution 
of the waters. 

In the third place, these works can be acquired only after negotiation 
with present owners and agreement upon a price. 

The productiveness of these works can not be stated with precision. 
They are being extended. New sources of supply are being added and still 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


23 


other sources could be brought under contribution if it were essential 
to do so. 

The system has been described in the Progress Report already referred 
to. During the last year the capacity of the submarine pipes on the Ala¬ 
meda pipe line has been increased by the adidtion of two 22-inch steel 
pipes, and the pumping capacity at Belmont has also been greatly increased. 

The works may preliminarily be taken into consideration with devel¬ 
oped sources of water supply about as follows: 

Lobos Creek, in San Francisco. 1,000,000 gallons per day 

Lake Merced, in San Francisco. 2,000,000 gallons per day 

Peninsular reservoir (Crystal Springs, San An¬ 
dreas, Pilarcitos) .17,000,000 gallons per day 

Sunol Valley, including artesian supply from 

Pleasanton .12,000,000 gallons per day 

Total .32,000,000 gallons per day 

They are capable of further expansion, notably by the construction 
of the San Antonio Creek and Calaveras Valley resorvoirs. The former 
would add about 3 to 5 million gallons per day; the latter, if developed to 
its full capacity, would deprive the Sunol gravels of an inflow of possibly 
5,000,000 gallons per day, while yielding 25 to 30 millions gallons for delivery 
across Santa Clara Valley by tunnel and pipe. The Calaveras properties 
being held in reserve by the Spring Valley Water Works, have, of course, lost 
their importance as a possible independent source of supply. 

The Searsville property of the Spring Valley Water Works can also 
be brought under contribution. Its productiveness may reach about 
7,500,000 gallons per day, of which a portion goes to the supply of the 
Leland Stanford, Jr., University. 

The character of the water furnished bv the several sources of the 

t/ 

Spring Valley Water Works has already been noticed in preceding reports. 

The drainage basin of Lobos Creek is within the city. Its water can 
not safely be used for domestic purposes without filtration, and when 
filtered will still remain under suspicion. It can hardly be considered 
otherwise than as an undesirable emergency supply. 

Mountain Lake is located at the south line of the Presidio, in San 
Francisco, at the source of Lobos Creek. Its water is now intercepted 
by marginal wells and is being used for the supply of the Persidio. Lobos 
Creek is described in the report of the late Colonel Mendell, 1877, and is 
referred to in the Progress Report of 1901. 

Lake Merced is somewhat more favorably located than Lobos Creek. 
Its waters can not, however, safely be used without filtration. It is to be 
considered particularly valuable to safeguard the supply from more remote 
sources. 

The quality of water from the Peninsula reservoirs may be considered 
as fairly represented by the water ordinarily delivered to the consumers 
in this city. Good quality, except possibly when the reservoirs are at low 
stages, has been demontsrated by long continued use. The waters from 
the several reservoirs are so intermixed before they reach the consumer 
that reliable samples of the water as delivered from each of the several 
sources are well nigh unobtainable. To illustrate: When water is pumped 
from Lake Merced, it is usually delivered into the Pilarcitos main; some 








24 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


may be dropped into the Lower San Andreas main. Through these mains 
it reaches Lake Honda and College Hill reservoirs, and may thus become 
a component of water samples taken from the distributing systems of pipes 
from these reservoirs. Again, water from Crystal Springs reservoir is at 
times pumped into the San Andreas system; San Andreas water may be 
pumped into the Pilarcitos system; Alameda Creek water is sent into the 
Crystal Springs main, and some of it from this into the San Andreas main, 
and again from this main into the Pilarcitos pipe. This being the case, 
the qualty of water should not be discussed merely upon the basis of 
samples secured from the consumers’ taps, but each source should be dealt 
with independently in order that the relative purity and desirability of the 
water from the several sources may be determined. 

A portion of the supply now furnished to the city is subjected to a 
process of natural filtration. The natural flow of Calaveras, San Antonio 
and Laguna Creeks is led into the gravels of Sunol Valley, and then 
reclaimed from these gravel beds by means of sub-surface galleries or 
conduits. 

The low water flow of Laguna Creek is re-enforced by the discharge 
of a number of artesian wells near Pleasanton. These wells are allowed 
to discharge into a sub-surface gallery which delivers their water into 
the creek channel. Ultimately their water will no doubt be carried by 
pipe conduit directly into the Sunol Valley system without being refiltered 
in the gravel beds. 

The further development of the resources of the Sunol Valley and 

i 

adjacent territory includes the construction of a storage reservoir on San 
Antonio Creek and the construction of what might be called a temporary 
reservoir in Calaveras Valley. Water from these, liberated during the 
low water period of the creeks, will be delivered to and be filtered by 
the natural gravel beds of Sunol Valley, equalizing the output of this 
source. 

The permanent value of the natural filter remains to be demonstrated. 
The water reaching the galleries travels a greater or less distance through 
the gravel. It is freed from suspended impurities. Some of the water 
taken from the creek is in contact with the gravel but a short distance, 
jinking almost vertically to the intercepting conduit. To what extent is 
’his filter system efficient? and, will continued use clog the gravels or other¬ 
wise render the filter inefficient as a purifier of the water? are questions 
which can only be answered on the basis of long-continued, systematic 
observation under earnest co-operation of the Spring Valley Water Works. 
This study should be commenced at once in order that later results may 
be compared with present conditions. It should be conducted by the Board 
of Health. 

Examinations relating to quality of water obtainable from the source 
of supply of the Spring Valley Water Works are of perhaps greater im¬ 
portance than in connection with the sources of any of the other schemes 
of merit that have been suggested for the supply of this city—first, because 
the water is at present actually being used by the city and its inhabitants, 
and the knowledge obtained by systematic observation may be of aid in 
maintaining it at a standard of purity; and, secondly, because by reason 
of the nearness of the supply and the human activity in the watersheds 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


25 


tributary to the sources, there is much greater possibility of pollution than 
in the cases of the remote sources, some of whose watersheds are unin¬ 
habitable and practically inaccessible except for a few months each year. 

These matters are referred to at this time because in considering the 
availability of any source of supply, it is necessary to give due weight to 
all its features and to make allowance for those elements which are un¬ 
certain. In the matter of undeveloped resources, the Spring Valley Water 
Works stands on the same basis as the independent projects. 

EXAMINATION OF THE QUALITY OF THE WATER NOW BEING 

SUPPLIED TO SAN FRANCISCO. 

At the outset of the water supply investigation by the Board of Public 
Works, the importance of frequent examinations to determine the quality 
of water supplied from near-by sources was recognized and water samples 
were taken systematically, not only from the taps through which it was 
delivered to the consumers, but also from the Peninsula storage reservoirs 
and the Sunol gravels, representing the sources of supply, and again from 
the receiving reservoirs into which it was delivered before entering the 
city system of pipes. 

This work, which was commenced in August, 1900, was terminated upon 
order of the Board of Supervisors in March, 1901. 

The results of the chemical analyses made and of the bacteriological 
examinations have been incorporated in the progress report of 1901. 

The examination of water delivered to consumers has since been 
resumed by the City Chemist, Mr. Frank T. Green, under direction of the 
Board of Health. From the reports furnished to the City Engineer from 
time to time of the results of this examination, it appears that Spring 
Valley waters have been analyzed, during a period of about one and one- 
half years to and including October, 1902, as follows: 

Waters taken at the sources of supply: 

One sample from Sunol gravels. 

One sample from Pilarcitos reservoir. 

One sample from San Andreas reservoir. 

One sample from North Lake Merced. 

One sample from South Lake Merced. 

One set of 3 samples from Lobos Creek. 

Water from main conduits in transit to San Francisco: 

Two samples of Sunol water at Niles. 

Three sets of 3 samples each, of Sunol water from Niles and Belmont. 

Two sets of 2 samples each, of Sunol w'ater from Niles. 

Water at points of delivery into the city receiving reservoirs: 

Two samples at University Mound reservoir. 

One sample at College Hill reservoir. 

One sample at Lake Honda screen-house. 

Water from various taps in public squares; in school buildings and in 
private residences—upwards of 90 samples. 

In addtiion to these analyses, the City Chemist has analyzed a great 
many well waters which are in use for domestic purposes, and many samples 
of the water used in Golden Gate Park. 


26 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


It appears from the above approximate statement of the scope of the 
chemical examination of the drinking water used in this city, that changes 
in quality of water at the Spring Valley sources of supply, due to varying 
amounts stored, or to effect of rainfall, or to long exposure to summer heat 
and the like, can not be thereby disclosed. This can only be accomplished 
by taking samples frequently at fairly regular intervals, so that they will 
show the seasonal variations in quality. The chemical analyses need not 
be as frequent as the bacteriological examinations. 

A comprehensive study of the quality of water furnished by the Spring 
Valley Water Works should include chemical and bacteriological exami¬ 
nations as indicated in the following schedule, in which “c” stands for 
a chemical analysis and “b” for a bacteriological examination: 


Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Pilarcitos reservoir. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 


cb 

b 

cb 

San Andreas reservoir 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 


cb 

b 

cb 

Crystal Springs reservoir... 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 


cb 

b 

cb 

Sunol gravels from collect- 













ing gallery. 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

Sunol water at Niles . 



cb 






cb 




Sunol water at Belmont 



cb 






cb 




Pleasanton wells 

cb 


cb 


cb 




cb 




Laguna Creek. 

cb 








cb 




Calaveras Creek 

cb 








cb 




S. Lake Merced. 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

N. Lake Merced.. 


cb 




cb 





cb 


Lake Honda screen house.. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

College Hill aerator. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

University Mound screen 













house. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

Hamilton square. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

Columbia square. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

cb 

b 

City Hall square. 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

cb 

b 

b 

cb 

b 


When this shall have been done for a year the number of chemical 
analyses may be reduced. This examination is intended, among other 
things, to show the changes that take place in the water while in transit 
from source to place of use. Attention has already been called to the 
fact that there appears to be a gradual decrease in the number of bacteria 
when water is sent a long distance in covered or closed conduits. More 
light on this fact is desirable. 


MOKELUMNE RIVER AND BLUE LAKES STANDARD ELECTRIC 

COMPANY. 

Mokelumne River is one of the Sierra Nevada streams which has in 
the past received more or less attention as a source of water for San Fran¬ 
cisco. The Blue Lakes lie in its watershed. This source of supply received 
special consideration at the time that the various projects were reported on 
by Colonel Mendell. Since that time, however, conditions have materially 
changed. The water resources are being developed by the Standard Electric 
Company. Storage at Blue Lakes has been increased by raising the dams. 
Upper Bear River reservoir has been constructed, but with much less storage 
capacity than anticipated at the time of the report of Colonel Mendell. 
Small reservoirs at Twin Lakes and Meadow Lake also add to the supply. 




























































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


27 


The Deer Valley reservoir is likely to be constructed in the near future. 
V ater thus developed in the field that would have been made tributary 
to a San Francisco system is being utilized to supply consumers served 
by the Amador Canal, and to develop power at Electra for transmission by 
electricity to places of use in part as far westerly as San Francisco. The 
water required at the power station will, after use in the water wheels, be 
liberated at an altitude of about 750 feet above sea-level. It therefore 
appears probable that the use of this water may be offered to San Francisco. 

Without entering into a discussion of other merits of this project, it 
may be stated that so far as quality of water, judged by character of the 
collecting ground is concerned, the project is outranked by the Tuolumne 
River project. Storage of water which will fall below the preliminary 
estimates noted in Colonel Mendell’s report, would be at many widely scat¬ 
tered points, difficult and almost impossible of access during the winter; 
and, unless the city obtained full control of these storage works and of 
the canal system, the joint interest in the maintenance of the storage and 
canal works would alone condemn this source of supply. 

As long, therefore, as a project similar to that from Tuolumne River 
remains available, no further attention need be paid to the Mokelumne 
River projects. 

EEL RIVER, CLEAR LAKE, PUTAH CREEK. 

Eel River, Clear Lake, Putah Creek, which all lie north of San Fran¬ 
cisco Bay, are out of consideration in a final comparison. They are among 
the remote sources; the collecting ground of these sources is far inferior to 
that of the Sierra Nevada sources; the utilization of their waters would 
make bay crossings necessary; and, finally, no well-defined project for their 
utilization has been submitted or suggested. None of these sources appear 
sufficiently promising to warrant further attention than has already been 
accorded them in the reports that have heretofore been made on the subject 
of municipal water supply. 

Concerning a tunnel under Golden Gate, which would be a feature of 
projects for the utilization of at least two of those sources, Colonel Mendell, 
in his report, says: “The tunnel itself can hardly be said at present 
to be either practicable or impracticable. The way to prove it practicable 
is to build it. ’ ’ ♦ 

AMERICAN RIVER. 

In entering upon a discussion of the merits of projects whose sources 
are on the headwaters of American River, it is necessary to say a few 
words about this river and the established rights to its waters. The river 
has a drainage area of 1899 square miles. Its normal flow at Folsom, where 
it leaves the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, may be noted at about: 


In January .2,850 cubic feet per second 

In February .3,800 cubic feet per second 

In March .4,750 cubic feet per second 

In April.,.6,650 cubic feet per second 

[n May .7,600 cubic feet per second 

In June .7,600 cubic feet per second 








28 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


In July .1,450 cubic feet per second 

In August . 285 cubic feet per second 

In September . 285 cubic feet per second 

In October . 320 cubic feet per second 

In November . 380 cubic feet per second 

In December . 950 cubic feet per second 


The maximum flow of the river greatly exceeds the maximum monthly 
average here noted for May and June, and the minimum falls below the 
least average monthly discharge. 

In seasons of light rainfall, the aggregate annual discharge is probably 
about one-third of the amount indicated by this table. It is proportionately 
much less in the months during which the river is at high stages than 
during months when it is low. 

No attempt will be made to enumerate the rights to use American 
River water. These are necessarily to be considered as obstacles which to 
some extent would interfere with the utilization of the natural flow of the 
river by San Francisco. Attention will be called only to two diversions of 
water. The American ditch takes upwards of 2,000 miners’ inches of 
water, about 40 second feet from the main branch of the river below the 
junction of the North and Middle Forks. The Folsom water power canal, 
which takes its supply from the river below all its main forks, has a capacity 
of about 1,600 second feet. 

It is apparent that if these established rights to water must be recog¬ 
nized that none of the low water flow of the North Fork, nor of its flow 
in any month when the combined output of the river falls below an amount 
which may for the purpose of this illustration be stated at 1,640 second 
feet, can be diverted for delivery to San Francisco. 

It is to. be assumed at once, therefore, that during the months, July to 
December, inclusive, in years of normal rainfall and for a period of at 
least eight months in years of light rainfall, the city’s supply would have 
to come from stored waters. 

As will be seen by the conclusions below reached, no complete investi¬ 
gation of other rights to the use of American River water is necessary, 
it being only desired to call attention to the fact that the city could not 
enter into an undisputed use of the flow of either the North Fork, Middle or 
South Fork, at their low water stages. 

North Fork projects may be discussed on the basis of the proposed 
works of the Giant Gap Water Company. Concerning its source of supply, 
this company says: 

“It is proposed to restore the flow of the low water stages to the 
extent of the city’s requirements from storage reservoirs to be constructed 
in the drainage basin. The aggregate available storage capacity is between 
37,500,000,000 and 40,000,000,000 gallons, and the catchment areas are suffi¬ 
cient to provide the water for storage from the annual precipitation, with the 
exception of the Ice Lakes reservoir, which from its own drainage basin 
would store in seasons of average rainfall 3,000,000,000 gallons. In addi¬ 
tion, there are reservoir storage areas outside of, but adjacent to the water¬ 
shed proposed, which can be utilized as part of the proposed source. The 
storage possibilities of our proposed source are indisputably sufficient for 
any possible requirement of the city for the next century, and are at the 








SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


29 


same time sufficient to provide tlie requirement independent of the low 
water flow of the river. ’ ’ 

RESERVOIR SITES—GIANT GAP. 


Name. 

Height of 
Dam. Feet, 

Material of Dam. 

Storage Capacity. Gallons. 

1 Paalisade Lake. 

70 

100 

75 

60 

65 

Granite masonry 
Granite masonry 
Earth. 

3.400.000.000 
26,000.000.000 
3,800.000.000 
800,000.000 
2.000,000.000 
Estimated over 500,000,000 
Estimated over 1,000,000,000 
Estimated over 1.000,000.000 
Estimated over 500,000,000 

2 Ice Lakes. 

3 Lake Valiev. 

4 Six Mile Valley. 

Earth. 

5 Two Mile Valiev. 

Earth. 

6 *Onion Valiev. 


7 *Soda Springs Valley. 



8 *Big Valley. 



9 *Small Lakes. 






Total. 


0 

.39.0C0.000.000 






*Not surveyed. 

The watershed areas tributary to these several reservoir sites have not 
been surveyed. The best information relating to this feature is obtainable 
from the U. S. Geological Survey maps, on a scale of 2 miles to the inch. 
From these maps and approximate location of the dam sites, it appears that, 
including water surface areas of the several reservoirs, there are tributary 
to Palisade Lake about 2.12 square miles, to Ice (Sereno) Lake about 2.4 
square miles, to Lake Valley about 4.08 square miles, to Six Mile Valley 
about 1.64 square miles, to Two Mile Valley about 1.08 square miles, and 
to Big Valley about 4.34 square miles. The other reservoir sites could not 
be identified on maps with sufficient precision to justify an attempt to 
approximate their watershed areas. 

The mean annual run-off, as above stated, for a normal precipitation 
of 60 inches, may be preliminarily noted for the portion of the Sierra 
Nevada tributary to the reservoir sites at 36 inches in depth over the entire 
watershed area. 

The mean annual water production for the above named five sites, 
based on run-off and on the assumption that all is stored, none wasted, 


would be: 

Palisade Lake . 1,326,000,000 gallons 

Ice Lakes .1,501,000,000 gallons 

Lake Valley .2,552,000,000 gallons 

Six Mile Valley (claimed capacity)#. 800,000,000 gallons 

Two Mile Valley . 675,000,000 gallons 


Total .6,854,000,000 gallons 


The difference between the precipitation, 60 inches, and run-off, 36 
inches, applied to water surface area as well as to surrounding country, 
or 24 inches, represents loss by evaporation. It is probable that evapora¬ 
tion from the water surface of the reservoirs will approximate 3 feet. The 
entire water production can not, therefore, be assumed to be much, if any, 
in excess of 6,000,000,000 gallons. 

The production of four of the above five reservoir sites (Ice Lakes ex¬ 
cluded), whose capacity is noted on the basis of preliminary surveys, is, 
therefore, approximately 45 per cent, of their aggregate storage capacity 
without making any allowance for wasted waters during years of excessive 







































30 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


rain, which waste would occur to some extent, as in the case of Six Mile 
reservoir. 

Should it be conceded that the other four reservoirs named can produce 
the entire amount of water indicated by the claimed storage capacity, or 
4,000,000,000 gallons, then the annual production of water by the entire 
storage system of this project would be about 10,000,000,000 gallons. 

It seems hardly safe, however, to assume a production for these four 
unsurveyed reservoirs at the full amount of the storage capacities noted 
by the proponents of this project. On the assumption that the figures 
noted should be reduced in the same proportion as those whose dimensions 
are based on preliminary surveys, these four reservoir sites would produce 
about 1,800,000,000 gallons of water per year. 

Ice Lake Avas not included in the above comparison because its storage 
capacity is out of all proportion to the tributary watershed. 

It follows from the above that not to exceed 7,800,000,000 gallons of 
water per year can be assumed as the probable production of the reservoir 
system, and some of this water will necessarily be lost in transit by evap¬ 
oration and seepage. As already stated, this water would be required 
during a period of about eight months. 

The Giant Gap Water Co.’s project, therefore, enters into comparison 
as one that should preliminarily be considered capable of delivering not 
more than about 30,000,000 gallons of wated per day. 

But even this amount is predicated on the assumption that in the case 
of the four unsurveyed reservoirs, their capacity bears a fairly favorable 
relation to the tributary areas, otherwise it would become necessary to 
analyze the productiveness of the several drainage basins in years of mini¬ 
mum rainfall, and the result might be still less favorable. 

Sufficient has been said to show that the project is not attractive and 
need not be further considered. 

For comparative purposes, however, approximate lengths of canals, 
tunnels, and pipe lines have been noted. These show no material advantage 
for this project over other Sierra Nevada projects. 

Without attempting to present cost estimates of projects for the utili¬ 
zation of waters from American River, the fact that they will not be 

« 

cheaper (quantity being for the time left entirely out of consideration), 
than other Sierra Nevada waters, will be sufficiently illustrated by the 
following exhibit. 



Airline Dis¬ 
tance from 
San Francis¬ 
co. Miles. 

Length 

of 

Canal. 

Miles. 

Length 

of 

Tunnel 

Miles. 

Length of 
Submarine 
Conduit. 
Miles. 

Length 

of 

Pipe. 

Miles. 

Total 

North Yuba project. 

145 

21.2 

6.9 

3.1 

144.5 

174.5 

Lake Tahoe project. 

160 

65.0 

16.2 


161.8 

243 0 

Tuolumne river project. 

135 

28.2 

14.0 


137.8 

180 0 

Giant Gap (American riv.) project.. 

140 

51.2 


6.2 

120.5 

179.2 


The length of the conduit to bring waters from Lake Tahoe is noted 
for the Livermore Pass route. 

The lengths of the several classes of conduit, above noted, for the Giant 
Gap project, are substantially those claimed by the proponents. The canal 
























SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


31 


length includes flumes. These should be eliminated to permit a fair com¬ 
parison. 

Some tunneling would undoubtedly be necessary in case that no flumes 
are to be used. It may be assumed that the tunnels would shorten the line 
somewhat. This shortening of the line may be noted in the absence of 
definite information at about one-third of the tunnel length. On this 
assumption, and on the further assumption that one-fourth of the conduit 
length between Euchre Bar and Elfland be tunnel, the canal length will be 
about 35 miles and tunnel length 12 miles. 

Conduit lengths for the Giant Gap project then become: 


Canal . 35 miles 

Tunnel (total) . 13.1 miles 

Submarine Conduit ... 6.2 miles 

Pipe line .120.5 miles 


Total .174.8 miles 


These figures do not indicate any advantage for this project over other 
Sierra Nevada projects in the matter of cost of conduits. 

MIDDLE FORK OF AMERICAN RIVER, 

Much of what has above been said applies to the source of water indi¬ 
cated in the proposal of Messrs. William Stuart & Co. 

They offer a place of diversion on the Middle Fork of American River, 
and some work already done on canal and tunnel. They suggest ‘ 1 that there 
is sufficient quantity of water running daily at the lowest stage of the 
river to supply the inhabitants of the City and County of San Francisco 
from the present number thereof until the city shall reach a population of 
1,000,000 .” They also state as a fact “that the measurement of the flow 
of water of the supply offered whenever made during the weeks of the 
months of September, October and November, 1899, showed that there were 
over one hundred millions of gallons daily flowing by the head of the di¬ 
verting tunnel. * ’ 

The area of the drainage basin above the point of diversion suggested 
by Messrs. Stuart & Co. is about 530 square miles. It is a favorable col¬ 
lecting ground for water for municipal use. 

The communication of Messrs. Stuart & Co. is to be considered hardly 
more, however, than a suggestion as to a suitable point for diverting water 
from Middle Fork. The low water flow is not to be considered available for 
reasons above explained. Storage facilities do not seem to be controlled 
by the proponents. It is true that Lake Tahoe water could be delivered 
into this branch of American River. It is also true that there are a 
number of lakes in the watershed which can be converted into storage 
reservoirs. But the development of water by storage, in the lakes of the 
watershed, or in Lake Tahoe, are features of projects that have no relation 
whatever to the suggestion of Messrs. Stuart & Co., except that possibly 
the site selected by them might be suitable for a diversion of the water 
let loose from storage reservoirs higher up on the stream. 

For this purpose the site may have some advantages. It does not, 
however, in the light of information now at hand, appear attractive, and no 
purpose whatever would be served in making surveys and special exami- 








32 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


nations to confirm the fact that it would be suitable for this purpose, so 
long as it is an unimportant alternative feature of projects that themselves 
do not bear a favorable comparison with some of the others that have 
been under consideration. 

It would also be entirely useless to verify the above quoted statements 
relating to the low water flow of the river at the proposed place of diver¬ 
sion, as it is to be assumed that none of the low water flow could be taken 
without interference with vested rights. This suggestion may, therefore, 
be considered as eliminated from the list of projects worthy of consideration. 

LAKE TAHOE. 

The availability of Lake Tahoe as a source of water for San Francisco 
together with a plant for its utilization and an estimate of cost, has been 
presented in the Progress Report of 1901. Its water is of undoubted purity. 
The taking of "water from this source would, without doubt, meet with 
strenuous opposition, and the acquisition of rights to take the water for use 
ouside of the drainage basin of Truckee River would involve adjustments 
with the owners of properties and water rights in the adjoining State, 
Nevada. 

The legal questions, which cannot be settled in advance of final pro¬ 
ceedings, and the relatively high cost of works, are some of the disad¬ 
vantages to be noted for this project. 

YUBA RIVER. 

The merits of Yuba River as a source of water supply have received 
sufficient attention in the Progress Report of 1901. It may be added that 
the suggestion to use the junction of North and Middle Forks as a point 
for diversion does not require any special examination. The same objec¬ 
tions to the quality of the water of the river at the junction of the two 
forks that have been made to the water of the North Fork are to be noted. 
The collecting ground is not as favorable as could be desired and the cost 
of the works and of operation must compare unfavorably with some of 
the other Sierra Nevada projects. 

In the case of the South Fork, it may be stated that the available, res- 
erervoir sites have for the most part been occupied, and the developed water 
finds use within the mountain and foothill of Placer and Nevada counties. 

FEATHER RIVER, 

Feather River as a source of water for San Francisco was referred to 
in Colonel Mendell ’s Report of 1877, and again in the Progress Report of 
1901. 

For reasons therein stated, this source may be eliminated from those 
which should be considered available. 

OCEAN SLOPE CREEKS OF THE PENINSULA. 

The Ocean Slope creeks of the San Francisco peninsula have frequently 
been referred to as available sources of supply, the idea being that their 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


33 


water could be intercepted by a canal and led to some point from which 
delivery to San Francisco could be effected. These creeks are referred to in the 
report of Colonel Mendell, already mentioned. They are not conveniently lo¬ 
cated. No favorable sites for storing their waters on the Ocean Slope have 
yet been indicated. Some of this water is already used by and more could 
be added to the resources of the Spring Valley Water Works. 

These creeks are torrential in character. Their summer flow is entirely 
inadequate for the supply of the city and, except in combination with storage 
facilities—which if is believed do not exist, their yield would be entirely in¬ 
adequate in quantity to meet the requirements of a municipal water supply. 
They need not, therefore, be further considered unless it be to the extent that 
they can be made tributary to the Spring Valley Water Works system. 

ARTESIAN WELLS. 

Bay Shore artesian wells have been suggested as a near-by source of 
water supply. For such a source, the availability of water in sufficient quan¬ 
tity and the reliability of service are difficult to demonstrate. Actual con¬ 
struction and operation of works alone can determine whether the supply to 
any series of artesian strata is equal to the demand which would be made 
upon them if they were to be brought under continuous contribution for the 
full amount of water required by the city. 

The conditions under which the wells of the bay shore are supplied with 
artesian water are sufficiently well known to make it appear very improbable 
that the inflow into the water-bearing strata would year after year be equal 
to the draft upon the same by city pumps. 

The existence of water in the subsurface strata in sufficient quantity 
within reach of any favorably located pumping plant can not, as already 
stated, be positively demonstrated short of actual construction of works of 
full capacity and their operation for a long period of time. It is generally 
assumed that there is an outflow from artesian strata into the waters of San 
Francisco Bay. This is possible though not probable. Should it be the case, 
then the drawing of water from the strata by pumps in excess of the inflow, 
according to pump location, might gradually effect a displacement of the fresh 
water by salt water and might in such event result in a gradual deterio¬ 
ration of the water. 

In the light of present information, artesian sources are not considered 
available. 

SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS. 

The nearest rivers which San Francisco could draw upon for a supply, by 
pumping, are the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. In both cases, water 
w r ould require constant filtration and, during part of the year, sedimentation. 
The supply from Sacramento River would have to be brought by way of the 
Contra Costa County Bay shore and across San Francisco Bay; the supply 
from San Joaquin River, either by that route or across Livermore Pass. 

Along both routes, more or less formidable obstacles are to be overcome 
and the distance of the source of supply from the places of intended use is 
not inconsiderable. These supplies are not near-by. Length of conduits 
only being compared, they may be considered about one-half as far from 
San Francisco as the Sierra Nevada sources. 


34 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


It follows, therefore, that so marked a difference of first cost as above 
indicated for Pittsburgh, in favor of pumped and filtered water, is not to be 
expected in the case of San Francisco, and that the length of conduits will 
make necessary the same precautions to safeguard the reliability of service, 
particularly in the matter of near-by storage, as in the case of projects for 
the utilization of the more remote high mountain sources. 

Sacramento River is not only subject to pollution from the ordinary 
causes which apply to rivers draining well populated areas, but in this case 
the sewage of a number of cities and towns is delivered directly and without 
treatment into the main stream or its tributaries. In its lower portions 
where it flows through the broad area of swamp and overflowed lands, it re¬ 
ceives the seepage water and surface run-off from large areas of peat land. 
Its water, like that of the San Joaquin River, is always turbid, sometimes 
muddy. 

Lower San Joaquin River receives the back-flow from Sacramento River. 
It is interconnected with this river by Georgina and by Three Mile Sloughs. 
The former of these leaves Sacramento River far enough up stream to main¬ 
tain a discharge in the direction from Sacramento into San Joaquin River. 
The latter connecting slough, according to stages of the rivers and of the 
tides, flows alternately in one direction and then in the other. It has a dou¬ 
ble connection with San Joaquin River. The upper connection is known as 
Seven Mile Slough. 

During its low-water stage, the San Joaquin River has practically no 
discharge. The water of the main stream is intercepted above Firebaugh, 
and at the low-water stage is all turned into the San Joaquin and Kings 
River canal. The small amount of leakage through the barriers there main¬ 
tained for the diversion of the stream is lost by evaporation and in filtra¬ 
tion into the river bed long before the river receives its next tributary—the 
Merced River at Hills Ferry. 

The contribution of water to the main stream from this tributary is 
small in the summer and fall months—its waters being in demand for the 
supply of the great Merced canal, whose capacity far exceeds the low-water 
flow of this stream where it breaks from the mountain, and for the many 
small canals and ditches which irrigate the Merced bottom lands, notably 
near Snelling. 

The other tributaries of San Joaquin River, the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, 
Calaveras and Mokelumne Rivers, are also almost entirely without discharge 
into the main stream during their low periods. The Calaveras River is a 
torrential stream, naturally dry in summer. The other rivers named are all 
contributors to irrigation works and, so far as works for the diversion of 
water permit, their entire low water flow is intercepted. 

The lower reaches of the San Joaquin River system may, therefore, dur¬ 
ing the late summer and fall months, be considered a network of elongated 
ponds, in which the water ebbs and flows as it would in a long tidal estuary, 
without renewal until the first rise of the next wet season pushes their stag¬ 
nant contents out into Suisun Bay. 

The water lost from these river channels by evaporation, or taken from 
them for irrigation or other purposes in excess of inflow from above, will be 
at once replaced from below by what has above been called a back-flow 
from Sacramento River. 

San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers are not, therefore, attractive sources 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


35 


of supply. Their water could be used only after filtration, which means at 
some risk relating to quality. These sources are not so close at hand that 
reduced cost of works necessarily compels their consideration in comparison 
with Sierra Nevada sources. They have, therefore, received only passing 
notice in preceding reports and are not, for the present at least, to be con¬ 
sidered available in the sense in which the charter appears to have used this 
word. 


STANISLAUS RIVER. 

Stanislaus River is very similarly conditioned to Mokelumne and Tuo¬ 
lumne Rivers, between which it lies. Reference has been made to it as a 
source of water in the Progress Report of 1901. Being decidedly inferior to 
Tuolumne River for this purpose, it does not need further consideration at 
this time. 


TUOLUMNE RIVER, 

Tuolumne River as a source of water has received special attention and 
a plan for its utilization, with estimates of cost, was submitted under date 
of July 28, 1902. 


GENERAL REMARKS. 

Attention has been called in the report of July 28, 1902, on the Tuol¬ 
umne River project, to the fact that the construction of a water works sys¬ 
tem entirely independent of the water works which are now supplying the 
city with water from near-by sources, would not be productive of the best 
results. The best available sites for water storage in large quantity near 
home—Crystal springs reservoir and Lake Merced, the latter for emergency 
use only—are already in use. They should be a part of the municipal sys¬ 
tem. 

• The receiving and service reservoirs of the Spring Valley Water Works 
in San Francisco, and their distributing system of pipes, can, of course, be 
duplicated, but such duplication would throw out of service nearly 400 miles 
of street mains, and would render about 50,000 service and 5,000 hydrant 
connections useless. It is probable, therefore, that the finally accepted pro¬ 
ject will include some portions of the Spring Valley Water Works plant. 

It may be noted that on the basis of a city supply of about 50 to 60 
million gallons of water per day, the first cost of works, purchase and com¬ 
pletion, would be about as follows: 

Spring Valley Water Works (including the Cala¬ 


veras Valley project) .$37,000,000 

North Yuba River project. 48,207,900 

Lake Tahoe . 47,415,300 

Tuolumne River . 39,531,000 


The completion of the Calaveras Valley sub-system of the Spring Valley 
Water Works is assumed for purposes of this comparison only. 

For this comparison the appraisement of value of the Spring Valley 
Water Works properties, submitted to the Supervisors for consideration, in 
fixing water rates, has been used; and the estimate of the Water Company’s 
Engineer for the utilization of the Calaveras properties, $10,677,000, has 
been added. 






36 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


The above suggested first cost to the city of the Spring Valley Water 
Works property is to be considered high. It is here noted merely for the 
purposes of preliminary comparison. 

It appears from what has been said in the foregoing pages and the 
earlier reports herein referred to: 

That the Spring Valley Water Works system, to the extent of its ca¬ 
pacity, ranks first in the reliability of service. 

That the Tuolumne River project ranks highest in the quality and 
quantity of water. 

That in the matter of first cost to the city, the advantage should be in 
favor of the Spring Valley system. (A sale at a fair price is to be as¬ 
sumed.) 

It is to be added that in the matter of operation, it remains uncertain 
which system, the Tuolumne River project or the Spring Valley Water 
Works, would have the advantage—the probability being in favor of the 
newer system. 

Under a combination of those two projects, only a part of the Spring 
Valley Water Works properties would be required. Whether such combina¬ 
tion would prove of advantage to the city can not well be determined in ad¬ 
vance of an agreement upon the price at which the necessary parts of the 
established system could be acquired. 

It seems unnecessary to extend the making of plans to projects for the 
utilization of other sources than those already examined, so long as no facts 
are known which would justify the hope that they can be shown to be more 
available than the Tuolumne River, which in the light of information now 
at hand is the most available source of supply for an independent system 
of municipal water works, or for the reinforcement of the established sys¬ 
tem. Respectfully, 

(Signed) C. E. GRUNSKY, 

City Engineer. 

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 

San Francisco, Cal., July 28, 1902. 

To the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, 

Of the City and County of San Francisco: 

Gentlemen—There is herewith transmitted a report on the Tuolumne 
River Water Supply Project, with plans and a cost estimate. 

In this report and the Progress Report of August 12, 1901, it has been at¬ 
tempted to present the information called for by the various resolutions of fhe 
Board of Supervisors directing the making of plans and cost estimates of the 
several available sources of water supply. Cost estimates for a number of 
projects were submitted in the Progress Report, and the recommendation was 
therein made that immediate further examinations be confined to a single 
Sierra Nevada stream and to the maturing of a single project, independent of 
the established water works system. 

This recommendation was adopted and the plans and cost estimate now 
presented are the result. 

■The surveys in the high mountain region were in charge of Mr. J. B. 
Lippincott, who was assisted by Mr. H. E. Green and Mr. H. Ramel. 

The field work from the Bear gulch power station to the Altamont pump- 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


37 


ing station was placed in charge of Mr. Franke R. Reade, who, however, very- 
soon resigned and was succeeded by Mr. O. N. Sanford; the field work from 
Altamont pumping station to San Francisco was in charge of Mr. J. R. Price. 
Both Mr. Sanford and Mr. Price are at present regular assistants in this 
Bureau. 

Assistants assigned to this work in the office were Mr. H. A. Noble and 
Mr. J. M. Owens. 

The work throughout has received the personal attention and direction of 
the City Engineer. 

The maps which accompany and which are made a part of this report are 
the following: 

Sheet No. 1—Reservoir site on Tuolumne river. Right of way application. 
Sheet No. 2—Lake Eleanor reservoir. Right of way application. 

Sheet No. 3—Lake Eleanor dam site. 

Sheet No. 4—Hetch-Hetchy reservoir site. 

Sheet No. 5—Hetch-Hetchy dam. 

Sheet No. 6—Canal line and watersheds. 

Sheet No. 7—Pipe line across San Joaquin valley. 

Sheet No. 8—Pipe line Altamont to San Francisco. 

Sheet No. 9—Inverted siphons on canal line. 

Sheet No. 10—Profile of pipe line across San Joaquin valley. 

Sheet No. 11—Profile of pipe line Altamont pumping station to San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

Sheet No. 12—Altamont pumping station force pipe. 

Sheet No. 13—Canal section. 

Sheet No. 14—Tunnel sections, main line. 

Sheet No. 15—Bear gulch power station pipe line. 

Sheet No. 16—Dry creek power station. 

Sheet No. 17—Dry creek power station pipe line. 

Sheet No. 18—Altamont pumping station. 

Sheet No. 19—Altamont reservoir. 

Sheet No. 20—Belmont reservoir. 

*Sheet No. 21—City distributing system, northwest one-quarter. 

*Sheet No. 22—City distributing system, northeast one-quarter. 

*Sheet No. 23—City distributing system, southwest one-quarter. 

*Sheet No. 24—City distributing system, southeast one-quarter. 

Sheet No. 25—Section of Ocean avenue tunnel. 

Sheet No. 26—Section of end walls Ocean avenue tunnel. 

Sheet No. 27—Section of Mission street tunnel. 

Sheet No. 28—Manhole on Mission street tunnel. 

Sheet No. 29—Receiving reservoir No. 1. 

Sheet No. 30—Receiving reservoir No. 2. 

Sheet No. 31—Eighteenth street reservoir. 

Sheet No. 32—Twenty-fourth street reservoir. 

Sheet No. 33—Lone Mountain reservoir. 

Sheet No. 34—Holly Park reservoir. 

Sheet No. 35—University street reservoir. 

Sheet No. 36—Ocean View reservoir. 

Very respectfully, 


*Not printed on account of size. 


C. E. GRUNSKY, 
City Engineer, 



38 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


San Francisco, Cal., July 28, 1902. 

To the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, 

Of the City and County of San Francisco: 

Gentlemen—The information presented to the Board of Public Works and 
to the Supervisors during the last fiscal year relating to the investigation of 
the various available sources of water supply, as set forth in the Progress 
Report heretofore submitted, establishes Tuolumne river as the most available 
source of supply for municipal water works entirely independent of the estab¬ 
lished system owned by the Spring Valley Water Works. 

Instructions were, therefore, issued by you under the authorization of the 
Board of Supervisors to the City Engineer to make a special study of the 
Tuolumne river project, to make the necessary surveys, to prepare plans of 
water works, based upon this source of supply, and to present a revised cost 
estimate based upon actual survey of canal and pipe line routes and including 
in the project the pumps, receiving and service reservoirs, and distributing 
system of pipes required within the city. 

On the 23d day of January, 1901, a letter was sent to the Board of Public 
Works as follows: 

“Gentlemen—The water supply investigation has been advanced sufficiently 
“to justify the conclusion that San Francisco will ultimately be in need of a 
“source of water supply from the Sierra Nevada mountains, either with or 
“without the utilization of the established and nearer sources. Preliminary 
“examinations demonstrate the practicability of bringing in such a supply. 

“Under these circumstances, the acquiring of necessary water rights and 
“storage facilities should not be overlooked. They should be secured as op¬ 
portunity offers to the end that when the time comes works may be estab¬ 
lished adequate to meet the future needs of this city. 

“To preven certain privileges and rights that may be of vital importance 
“from falling into the hands of speculators, private individuals or private cor¬ 
porations adverse to the interests of this city, and as the regulations of the 
“Department of the Interior permit the filing of applications and the “setting 
“apart to individuals or corporations of reservoir sites in the public domain, 
“application should at once be made to the Secretary of the Interior to set 
“apart for the use of this city the Hetch Hetchy valley and Lake Eleanor res¬ 
ervoir sites. 

“If this can not be done at once, it may be possible to have these lands, 
“which lie entirely within the Yosemite National Park, withdrawn from entry 
“for resorvoir purposes for a reasonable time in order that this city may have 
“an opportunity to perfect a formal application therefor. 

“It will undoubtedly be at once recognized that the use to which the wa¬ 
fers to be stored are to be put is the highest possible beneficial use to which 
“water can be put. 

“Very respectfully, 

“(Signed) C. E. GRUNSKY, 

“City Engineer.” 

This letter led to correspondence with Mr. J. B. Lippincott, the Coast rep¬ 
resentative of the United States Geological Survey, who is particularly well 
informed in the matter of proceedings to be followed in filing upon rights-of- 
way for reservoir sites on the public domain. 

The Board of Public Works called the attention of Mayor Phelan to the 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


39 


importance of early action in this matter, and, after repeated conferences, it 
was determined to proceed at once with surveys at both Lake Eleanor and the 
Hetch Hetchy valley, which could be used as a basis for reservoir right-of-way 
locations. 

Negotiations with Mr. Lippincott led to his employment to make the nec¬ 
essary surveys. His work in the field commenced as soon as the region to be 
examined and surveyed was accessible. Some little trouble was in fact experi¬ 
enced by his assistants in reaching the locality of work, and particularly in 
effecting crossings of Cherry creek and Tuolumne river, which were swollen 
by melting snows. 

In addition to furnishing data as a basis for the planning of works and 
estimating the cost thereof, Mr. Lippincott was instructed to prepare all neces¬ 
sary maps and papers for reservoir right-of-way filings. 

It was determined that all applications for rights of water and reservoir 
sites should be made in the name of Mayor Phelan, because there were no 
provisions in the regulations issued by the Department of the Interior under 
which a municipality could file on a reservoir site, and information had been 
received from the Commissioner of the General Land Office that no such filing 
had ever been made and it was undecided whether it could be done, and for the 
further reason that the necessity of preparing and filing documents to estab¬ 
lish the right of San Francisco to proceed in this matter might be obviated, 
thereby avoiding publicity that would otherwise have followed any authoriza¬ 
tion for such purpose by the Board of Supervisors. 

Notice of claims to water from Tuolumne river and from Eleanor creek 
were posted as follows: (See appendix No. 1). 

DISCHARGE ESTIMATES OF TUOLUMNE RIVER AT PROPOSED 

DAM SITE. 

“The entire drainage of the Tuolumne river above La Grange is about 
“1,500 square miles, some 400 square miles of which lie above the proposed 
“dam site, the elevation of which site is 3,630 feet above sea level. This upper 
“drainage area consists of high granite mountains culminating in Mount Dana, 
“Mount Gibbs and Mount Lyell. Probably one-third the volume of water 
“measured at the mouth of the canyon at La Grange, where the river enters 
“the San Joaquin valley, passes the proposed dam site. 

“The California State Engineer made the following determinations at La 
“Grange. (See Physical Data and Statistics of California) : 

—Second Feet— 



l 

Max. 

Min. 

Mean. 

N ovember-October, 

1878-79. 

. 14,230 

30 

2,008 

November-October, 

1879-80. 

. 19.300 

56 

3,642 

November-October, 

1880-81. 

. 22,900 

125 

2,888 

N ovember-October, 

1881-82. 

. 13,670 

225 

2,319 

November-October, 

1882-83. 



2,074 

N ovember-October, 

1883-84. 



3,178 












40 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


“The following determinations were made by the United States Geological 
“Survey at La Grange: 


—Second Feet— 

Max. Min. Mean. 

1896 . 1L798 75 2,342 

1897 . 14,700 28 3,364 

1898 . 7,800 .... 1,182 

1899 . 21,800 5 2,315 

1900 . 14,400 .... 2,160 


“(See Annual Reports of the Geological Survey). 

“The total annual discharge of the Tuolumne river at La Grange, in acre 
“feet, as determined by the United States Geological Survey, is as follows: 


1896 . 1,696,100 acre feet 

1897 . 2,422,827 acre feet 

1898 . 854,496 acre feet 

1899 . 1,126,793 acre feet 

1900 . 1,573,498 acre feet 


“On May 30, 1901, the applicant for this right of way caused a gauge-rod 
“to be placed in the Tuolumne river at the dam site. A cable was stretched 
“over the river, and the following current meter measurements were made 
“therefrom : 

1901—June 29—Gage, 36.0 feet. 

July A —Gage, 30.0 feet. 

July 12—Gage, 26.1 feet. 

July 21—Gage, 24.17 feet. 

July 29—Gage, 21.5 feet. 

Aug. 2—Gage, 20.33 feet. 

Aug. 13—Gage, 15.7 feet. 

Aug. 25—Gage, 13.28 feet. 

“Numerous intermediate observations of river heights were made upon 
“the gauge rod, and a rating table was constructed from the water measure- 
“ments, and estimated discharges obtained as given below: 


Discharge, 7,621 sec. feet. 
Discharge, 3,296 sec. feet. 
Discharge, 2,720 sec. feet. 
Discharge, 1,886 sec. feet 
Discharge, 928 sec. feet. 
Discharge, 1,137 sec. feet.* 
Discharge, 472 sec. feet. 
Discharge, 231 sec. feet. 



Max. 

Min. 

Mean. 

1901—June . 

. 7,620 

1,500 

3,460 

July . 

. 3,650 

1,220 

2,101 

August . 

. 1,135 

190 

512 


“The total discharge from May 30 to September 8, 1901, is estimated at 
“387,772 acre feet. 

“From the above it may be seen that the water supply is ample to fill 
“reservoir site of 107,426 acre feet capacity, as here applied for, in all years.” 


DISCHARGE ESTIMATES OF ELEANOR CREEK AT PROPOSED 

DAM SITE. 

“The drainage area of Eleanor creek above the proposed dam site is 84 
“square miles. The elevation of the dam site is 4,655 feet above sea level. 
“The drainage area consists of high granite mountains culminating in Rich¬ 
ardson peak, elevation 9,845 feet; Haystack peak, elevation 9,966 feet, and 


(*Float measurement.) 

















SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


41 


“an unnamed peak, elevation 10,510 feet. The average elevation of the drain¬ 
age basin is probably 7,500 feet. 

“In 1897 the run-off of the entire basin of the Tuolumne river was 2.24 
“second feet per square mile, which is near an average for the years of 
“observation. In 1898 the run-off was 0.79 second feet, which is the mini- 
“mum. 

“Assuming one second foot per square mile to be the minimum discharge 
“from the drainage area tributary to Lake Eleanor, the inflow into the pro¬ 
posed reservoir would be 57,840 acre feet. 

“On June 1, 1901, the applicant for this right of way caused a gauge rod 
“to be placed in Eleanor creek below the proposed dam site, and had the 
“following current meter measurements made: 

1901—June 10—Gage, 8.67 feet. Discharge, 411 sec. feet. 

June 22—Gage, 9.77 feet. Discharge, 793 sec. feet. 

July 8—Gage, 8.57 feet. Discharge, 310 sec. feet. 

July 16—Gage, 7.92 feet. Discharge, 263 sec. feet. 

July 18—Gage, 7.80 feet. Discharge, 225 sec. feet. 

July 27—Gage, 7.45 feet. Discharge, 145 sec. feet. 

August 3—Gage, 7.10 feet. Discharge, 84 sec. feet. 


75 sec. feet. 
30 sec. feet. 
42 sec. feet. 
32 sec. feet. 
18 sec. feet. 


August 10—Gage, 6.92 feet. Discharge, 

August 17—Gage, 6.48 feet. Discharge, 

August 19—Gage, 6.68 feet. Discharge, 

August 23—Gage, 6.47 feet. Discharge, 

August 27—Gage, 6.26 feet. Discharge, 

“Numerous intermediate observations of river height were made upon the 
“gage rod, and a rating table was constructed from the meter measurements, 
“and estimated discharges obtained as given below: 

Max. 

1901—June . 1,834 

July . 

August ... 122 

“The total discharge from June 1 to August 31, 1901, is estimated at 
“68,953 acre feet. 

“From the above it may be seen that the water supply is ample to fill the 
“reservoir site of 47,290 acre feet capacity, as here applied for, in all years.” 

Gaugings on the streams were, under direction of the Board of Public 
Works, continued until the middle of October. As a result of the gaugings 
and of estimates of flow based on elevations of water surface, the following 
information can now be presented: 


Max. 

Min. 

Mean. 

1,834 

374 

824 

510 

138 

275 

122 

18 

55 





42 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


LIST OF DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON TUOLUMNE 
RIVER IN HETCH-HETCHY VALLEY IN 1899 AND 1901. 


(By the U. S. Geological Survey in 1899; by the City Engineer in 1901.) 


Date 

Bydrograpber 

Metex 

No 

Gauge 

Height 

tfeet) 

Area or 
Section 
(sq ft) 

Mean 
Velocity 
<ft. per 
second 

Dis 

charge 

(second 

feet) 

3i 

Henry Ramel. 





238.00 

a tier 5 

Henry Ramel.. . 





230 00 

AUg 12 

Henry Ramel. 





130.9 

Aug 19 

Henry Ramel. 





100.8 

Aug. 23 

Henry Ramel. 





68 5 

1901-June 29 

Miller & Cockins. 

Float 

36.00 

22,027.00 

3.76 

*7,621 00 

July 4 

C. A. Miller. 

138 

30.00 

1,654.6 

2.00 

*3.296.00 

July 12 

C. A. Miller. 

138 

26.1 

1,413 00 

1.92 

*2,720 00 

July ’21 

C. A. Miller. 

138 

24.17 

1,295 00 

1.46 

*1,886.00 

July 29 

W. W. Cockins Jr. 

Float 

21.5 

1,108.00 

1.04 

*1 160 00 

Aug. 2 

W.W. Cockins J.r. 

138 

20.33 

1,036.00 

1.10 

*1,137 1 

Aug. 13 

W.W.Cockins Jr & J.B.L. 

138 

15.70 

228.00 

2.07 

1472.2 

Aug. 25 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L. 

138 

13.28 

99.88 

2.32 

*231.3 

Aug. 29 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L 

138 

12.93 

86.17 

2v21 

H90.45 

Sept. 5 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L. 

138 

12.65 

21.00 

2.20 

1155.66 

Sept. 14 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L. 

55 

12.42 

40.50 

1.91 

f77.51 

Sept. 20 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L. 

55 

12.32 

32.00 

2.06 

166.12 

Sept. 28 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L. 

55 

13.11 

54.50 

2.65 

tl44.68 

Oct. 5 

W.W.Cockins Jr.& J.B.1.1 

65 

12.92 

41.20 

2.80 

^115.64 

Oct. .11 

W.W.Cockins Jr. & J.B.L. 

55 

12.60 

34.50 

2.94 

**8 7.9’t 

July 13 

C. A. Miller.. 

138 

1.20 

461.55 

4.00 

tfl,848.56 

AUg. 26 

W. W. Cockins Jr.•.. 

138 


75.60 

2.10 

ft 160 00 

Sept. 28 

W/W. Cockins Jr. 

55 


55.00 

t.86 

ft 102 39 

Oct. 11 

W W Cockins Jr. 

65 


45.70 

1.33 

tf59.62 


*Atdamsite fitioo feet above damsite at ford 

JBetween damsite a ad ford. fjJOOO feet above cable ford 

**50 feet below ford. rt Above Rancheria Creek 


rating table for tuolumne river jn hetcblhetchy 

VALLEY —1901. 

Bas£d on the results ot the g'augiags made In 1901, the following rating 
table was. prepared: 


Height on Gauge. 

Discharge. 
Second Feet 

Height on Gauge. 

=-^=- 

Discharge, 
Second Feet. 

12 feet 

50 

24 feet 

1,900 

12.5 feet 

100 

26 feet 

2,320 

13 feet 

140 

28 feet 

2,920 

<14 feet 

190 

30 feet 

3,650 

16 feet 

405 

32 feet 

4,580 

18 feet 

680 

34 feet 

5,900 

20 feet 

1,000 

36 feet 

7,620 

22 feet 

1.400 




The gauging station is located in the gorge at the outlet of Hetch-Hetchy 
valley. 



















































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


43 


DISCHARGE ESTIMATES OF TUOLUMNE RIVER IN HETCH- 
HETCHY VALLEY FOR THE YEAR 1901. 

(Drainage area, 452 square miles. Discharge in second-feet.) 


s 

M 

JON E, 

JULV. 

accost. 

SEPTEMBER 

OCTOBER 

1 

Gauge Height.. 

Discharge. 

Gauge Height.. 

Discharge. 

— 

Gauge Height.] 

Discharge. 

Gauge Height. 

» 

Discharge .... 

Gauge Height. 

Discharge. 

Gauge Height. 

Discharge. 

] 



*22.5 

1,550 

30.0 

3,650 

*20.62 

1,122 

*12.81 

125 

*13.04 

142 

• t 



24.0 

1,900 

28.6 

3; 130 

20.33 

1.066 

*12.77 

121 

*13.01 

141 

3 



*24.0 

1,900 

25.8 

2,376 

*19.87 

980 

*12.73 

119 

*12.97 

138 

4 



*24.0 

1,900 

30.0 

3,650 

*19.41 

911 

*12 69 

115 

*12.95 

136 

5 



*24.0 

1,900 

30.0 

3,650 

*18.94 

838 

12.65 

112 

12.92 

133 

6 



24.5 

2,000 

*28.0 

2,920 

*18.48 

762 

*12.60 

108 

*12.87 

128 

7 



24.5 

2,000 

*28.0' 

2i920 

*18.02 

682 

*12.56 

104 

*12.81 

125 

8 



*26.0 

2,320 

*25 0 

2,100 

*17.95 

672 

*12.52 

101 

*12.76 

121 

9 



26.0 

2,320 

*25 0 

2,100 

*17.49 

610 

*12.48 

98 

*12.70 

116 

10 



*27.0 

2; 600 

24.1 

1,920 

*17.03 

542 

*12.43 

95 

*12.65 

112 

11 



28.0 

2,920 

26.0 

2,320 

*16.57 

480 

*12.43 

95 

12.60 

108 

12 



*28.0 

2,920 

26.1 

2,348 

*16.11 

415 

*12.42 

95 

*12.58 

106 

J3 



'29.0 

3,270 

26 6 

2,488 

.-15.70 

370 

*12 42 

95 

*12.56 

10) 

14 



29.0 

3/270 

26.0 

2,320 

*15.58 

356 

12.42 

95 

*12.53 

103 

15 



*30.0 

3,650 

24.5 

2,000 

*15.36 

336 

*12.41 

93 

*12.50 

100 

16 



*31.0 

4,030 

*26.0 

2,320 

*15.14 

315 

*12.40 

92 



17 t 



*30.0 

3,650 

*24.5 

2,000 

*ll.92 

294 

*12.39 

92 


* • •••••« 

18 



*30.0 

3,650 

*24.0 

1,900 

*14 70 

270 

*12.37 

90 



19 



32 0 

4,580 

24 0 

1,900 

*14 48 

250 

*12 35 

87 



20 



*32.0 

4'580 

*24.0 

1,900 

- *14 26 

226 

12,32 

86 



21 



*32 0 

4 ,'580 

24.2 

T940 

*14 04 

204 

*12 41 

92 



2o 



33.0 

5|l50 

24.4 

1,980 

*13 82 

190 

*12.52 

102 



23 



*30.0 

3,650 

*24.0 

T900 ; 

*13 60 

1/6 

*12.64 

111 



24 



30.0 

3,650 

*23.0 

1,700 

*13 48 

168 

*12.73 

123 



25 



30 0 

3 650 

*23 0 

1*700 

13 28 

156 

*12.82 

128 



26 



31 5 

4'330 

*22.0 

1,400 

*13 19 

150 

*12.92 

133 



27 



30.4 

3,822 

*22.0 

l'400 

*13.10 

146 

*13.01 

141 



28 


' 

34.8 

6,440 

*21 5 

11300 

*13 11 

147 

13.11 

147 



29 



36.0 

7'620 

21.5 

1.300 

12 93 

135 

13.08 

145 



20 

32 3 

4 751 

31 7 

4^430 

*21.0 

1,200 

*12 89 

130 

13.06 

143 



31 

32^0 

4,580 


*21.0 

1,200 

*12.85 

127 



. 










Total 

9,331 


104,282 


66,932 


13,226 


3,283 


1,813 

1 

Mean 4,665.5 

3,476.1 

2,159.1 

426.7 

109.4 

120.8 


“►Indicates estimated gauge. 





















































































44 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


LIST OF DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON ELEANOR 
CREEK BELOW LAKE ELEANOR IN 1901. 


Date 

Hydrographer. 

Meter 

No. 

Gauge 

Height 

(feet). 

Area of 
Section 

(eg- ft.). 

Me«n 
Velocity 
(ft. per 
second). 

Djs- 

• charge 
(second 
feet). 

1901. 






y * 

June 10 

C. A. Miller. 

138 

8.67 

174.7 

236 

*411.4 

June 22 

C. A. Miller. 

138 

9.77 

282.6 

2.80 

793.26 

Julv 8 

C. A. Miller. 

138 

8 51 

185.4 

1.68 

3J0.1 

July 16 

C. A.Miller. 

138 

7.91 

168.36 

1.56 

263.12 

July 18 

C. A. Miller. i 

138 

7.80 

1 161.2 

1.37 

225.15 

July 27 

W. VV. Cockins, Jr.. 

138 

7.45 

154. 

.94 

144.76 

Aug 3 

W. W. Cockinp, Jr. 

138 

7.10 

147. 

.57 

84.4 

Aug. 10 

J. B. Lippincott. 

i:-8 

6.92 

137.3 

.55 

75 2 

Aug. 17 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

138 

6.48 

13,79 

2.19 

130.22 

Aug. 19 

VV. VV. Cockins, Jr.. 

138 

6.68 

18.02 

2.33 

• 42.06 

Aug. 23 

W. VV Cockins, Jr.. 

138 

6 47 

14 21 

2.22 

f31.52 

Aug. 27 

VV. VV. Cockins, Jr. 

138 

6.26 

9 19 

1.92 

117.78 

Aug. 30 

VV VV. Cockins, Jr .. 

138 

6.05 

8.53 

J.62 

<13.85 

Sept. 6 

VV. VV. Cockins, Jr.. 

138 

5.90 

3.70 

1.68 

1622. 

Sept. 14 

VV. VV. Cockins, Jr... 

Float 

5.70 

2.60 

1.67 

14 08 

Sept. 21 

VV. W. Cockins, Jr. 

5.5 

5.72 

2.65 

1.90 

+5.02 

Sept 26 

VV. W. Cockins, Jr. 

55 

5.85 

3.66 

1 60 

+ ->•77 

Oct. 3 

VV. VV. Cockins, Jr. 

55 

6.40 

13.14 

2.62 

134.48 

Oct. 10 

VV VV. Cockins, Jr... 

55 

6.21 

10.08 

2.10 

t2L14 

Oct. 1ft 

VV. VV. Cockins, Jr.. . 


6 1£ 

b 10 

1 

1.85 

fl5. 


*About below the lake. 

t At foot bridge 100.0 above previous observation*. 


RATING TABLE FOR ELEANOR CREEK BELOW LAKE ELEaNOR—1901. 

Based on the results of gaugings made in 1901, the following table was pre- 
-pared, from which the flow of Eleanor creek may be approximated when the 
'stage of water iStknowD. 


Height on Gauge. 

Discharge, 
Second Feet. 

Height on Gauge. 

Discharge, 
Second Feet. 

5‘ feet 


8 feet 

232 

5.5 feet 

3 

9 feet 

510 

5 feet 

11 

10 feet 

970 

7 feet 

78 

n feet 

1,770 


The gauging station is located at foot bridg'p about — feet below Lake 
Eleanor. 
















































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


45 


DISCHARGE ESTIMATES OF ELEANOR CREEK BELOW LAKE 

ELEANOR IN 1901. 

(Drainage area, 84 square miles. Discharge in*second feet.) 



Eleanor creek is a tributary to Cherry creek, which discharges into Tuo¬ 
lumne river about 15 miles below Hetch-Hetchy valley. 

The upper portion of Cherry creek is at sufficient elevation to permit a 
diversion of its waters into Lake Eleanor. In view of this fact, it was 
thought important to obtain at this time some information of the flow to 
Cherry creek. The results of observations on this stream are presented in 
the following tables: 










































































































46 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


LIST OF DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON CHERRY 
CREEK IN 1901 AT ELEANOR TRAIL CROSSING. 


Date. 

Uydrographer 

Meter 

Number. 

Gauge 

Belght 

(teeti. 

A rea of 
Section 
(sq. ft.) 

Mean 
Velocity 
(ft per 
second). 

Dis 

charge 

(second 

feet*. 

July 8 
July 17 
Aug. 9 
Aug. 19 
Aug. 20 
Aug. 24 
Sept. 1 
Sept. 7 
Sept. 17 
Sept. 22 
Sept. 26 
Oct 2 

C. A. Miller.. . 

138 

ll.iO 

414 7 

2.20 

*914.7 

C A, Miller. . 

138 

10/4 

322.3 

1.58 

f509 5 

f 112.1 

1132.45 

U06.81 

J. B. Lippincott.:... 

138 

8.75 

210 9 

53i 

W. W. Cocking, Jr.-A-.. 

138 

9 1 

79.5 

L.67 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

Floats 

8.4 

72.17 

1.48 

W. W, Cock'us, Jr.. 

138 

8.1 

45 5 

.94 

143.01 

W. VV. Cock ios, Jr. 

138 

7.80 

23 25 

.75 

{17.46 

16.14 

*4.30 

W W. Cockins, Jr f . 

Floats 

7.70 

20.50 

31 

W W. Cockins, Jr... .. 

55 

7.00 

3.35 

1.28 

W. W. Cockins.'Jr.. 

55 

7.06 

3.59 

1.24 

24 45 

W. W. Cockins, Jc, . . 

55 

55' 

9.05 

79.50 

1.75 

11141.0 
H119.93 
1143.12 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. . 

8.96 

70.85 

l 69 

Oct. 10 

W. W. Cockins, Jr... ... 

55 

8.00 

39.00 

L 10 


♦Cherry River could not be gauged until cable was up. t Ac cable, 

tat ford, rain 40 hoirs at headwaters. g50 ft. below ford. If At ford 


rating table for cherry creek, in cherry valley, at 

ELEANOR TRAIL CROSSING. 

The flow of Cherry creek at the Eleanor lake trail crossing may be approxi¬ 
mated from heights of water surface by use of the following table based on 
the results of the gaugings made In 1901: 


Height on Gauge 

Discharge 
Second Feet. 

Height on Gauge. 

Discharge 
Second Feet. 

7 

4 

11 

750 

7.5 

8 

12 

1150 

8 

28. 

13 

1550 

9 

129 

14 

1950 

10 

368 



-:-—- 

* 












































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


47 


DISCHARGE ESTIMATES OF CHERRY CREEK AT ELEANOR 

TRAIL CROSSING FOR 1901. 


(Drainage area, 115 square miles. Discharge in second feet.) 



Measurements on other streams flowing into Lake Eleanor and into Hetcb* 


Jietchy valley were made as shown in the following table: 







































































































48 


WATER SUPPLY" REPORTS 


LIST OF DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS ON STREAMS FLOWING 
INTO LAKE ELEANOR AND INTO HETCH- 
HETCHY VALLEY IN 1901. 


Date 

Hydrograpber 

Meter 

.No 

Gauge 

Height 

(feet) 

Area of 
Section 
<sq ft.). 

Mean 
Velocity 
(ft. per 
second). 

Dis¬ 

charge 

(second 

feet). 

June IT 

C. A Miller. 

138 


157.05 

1.44 

*225.7 

June 13 

C. A. Miller. 

138 


57.4 

1.29 

f74.03 

1116.44 

*121. 

June 12 

C A. Miller.„.. 

138 


46.53 

2.50 

July 16 
July 16 
July 17 
Aug. 18 
Aug. 18 
Aug. 18 
Aug. 27 
Aug. 27 
Aug. 27 
Oct. 1 

C. A. Miller. 

138 


76.08 

1.59 

C. A. Miller. 

138 


29.08 

.80 

f23.44 

132.90 

*75.04 

C. A. Miller. 

138 


23.16 

1.41 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

138 


58.8 

3.28 

W. W. Cockins, J’r. 

138 


6.7 

1.71 

U1.58 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

138 


2.33 

2.46 

15.73 

*6.77 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

138 


13.38 

1.15 

.53 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

338 


1.30 

fl.50 

11.00 

*47.63 

W. W. Cockins; Jr. 

138 


1.00 

1.00 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

55 


45.20 

1.05 

Oct. 1 

\V. W. Cockins, Jr. 

55 


4.65 

1.59 

f7.43 

14.88 

**36.5 

Oct. 3 

W.W. Cockins, Jr. 

55 


1.90 

2.65 

Aug. 12 
Sept. 5 
Sept. 19 
Oct. 4 

J. B. Lippincott. 

138 


29.9 

1.22 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

138 


2.10 

4.65 

t f 9.77 
112.96 
1136.10 

W. W. Cockins, Jr. 

Float 


1.90 

1.55 

H. Ramel. 

Float 


34.15 

1.13 


During June and July, Falls Creek discharges 350 second feet. 

*West Branch Eleanor Creek. JEast Branch Eleanor Creek. 

JFrog Creek. **Falls Creek, Lake Vernon Inlet. 

tfFalls Creek, Til-till trail crossing. +JFalls Creek, Inlet to Lake Vernon. 

During June and July Falls creek discharged 350 sec. feet. 

The creeks noted in the foregoing table do not represent a complete list 
of small creeks tributary to the two reservoir sites. 

The West and East branches of Eleanor creek and Frog creek are tribu¬ 
tary to Lake Eleanor. 

Falls creek is tributary to the Hetch-Hetchy valley. 

No gaugings have been made of Til-till and Rancheria creeks. 


LAKE ELEANOR. 

Lake Eleanor, which has been selected as one of the available reservoir 
sites, lies in the watershed of Tuolumne river on Eleanor creek, a tributary of 
Cherry creek. Its location is high up in the Sierra Nevada mountains at an 
elevation of about 4,700 feet. No wagon road leads to the lake. It is accessi¬ 
ble by trail. 

The region tributary to the lake has been described in the progress report 
on the water supply investigation for the year 1900-01. There is no question 
about the desirability of this watershed area as a collecting ground for water 
for domestic use. 

On the streams which lead into Lake Eleanor are a number of small 
lakes, many of which are so located that they could be converted into reser¬ 
voirs of considerable storage capacity. Nearly all of them have been formed 
by glacial action and are surrounded by bare granite mountain slopes and 
cliffs. This is true of Lake Eleanor itself, except in that the mountain 
slopes immediately adjacent to the lake are in large part fairly well timbered. 






















































PILLSBURY PICTURE CO. 
ENGRAVED BY BRITTON i REY, S. F. 


VIEW OF DAM SITE. HETCH-HETCHY RESERVOIR 











SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


49 


The area of Lake Eleanor is about 300 acres. The drainage area directly 
tributary to the lake is 84 square miles. 

The site for a dam that would be necessary to convert the lake into a 
storage reservoir is about one and one-quarter miles below the lower end of 
the lake on Eleanor creek, the lake outlet. 

At this point the creek flows over bare rock, and the mountains upon 
either side of the creek approach each other sufficiently to make the closing 
of this lake outlet by means of a dam feasible. 

The dam in this locality should be constructed of rubble masonry. It 
would have a crest length of about 1,300 feet, would be slightly arched up 
stream, would have a maximum height of about 75 feet, for a height of water 
surface in the reservoir 50 feet above present lake surface. Its cubical con¬ 
tents in masonry would be about 47,140 cubic yards. The lake surface would 
be increased by such a standard to 1,159 acres. 

The watershed area which is directly tributary to Lake Eleanor is of 
ample extent to annually fill a reservoir as above described. The precipita¬ 
tion, on the basis of the best information now obtainable, may be noted at 
about 36 inches per year. This is to be regarded as the normal precipitation. 
It is probable that an occasional maximum of twice this amount will occur and 
that there may be seasons in which the precipitation will fall to half this 
amount. 

The nearest station at which precipitation is measured is Sequoia (Crock¬ 
er’s), for which station the records have already been noted in the progress 
report heretofore submitted. On the basis of this rainfall record, and others 
not too far from the central portions of the Sierra Nevadas, it is estimated 
that the precipitation in the drainage basin tributary to the lake for the sea¬ 
son 1900-01 was about 50 inches. The run-off which was due to this rainfall 
has already been referred to and has in part been noted in preceding tables. 

The reservoir capacity is noted in the following table: 

LAKE ELEANOR RESERVOIR CAPACITY. 


Contour Elevation 

Area of Water 
Surface. Acres 

Contents* iD 
Million Gallons. 

Remarks. 

.75 



Base of dam. 

UK* 

306 


Water surface of lake. 

lift 

5.30 

1.898 


120 

760 

3,538 


130 

920 

6.282 


140 

1.050 

8,500 


150 

1.159 

13.108 

Proposed top of dam 


Of the total storage here indicated, it is probable that with a dam 75 feet 
high, rising to contour 150, only the water between contour 100 and 147 feet 
could be available. This would be about 12,000,000,000 gallons. 

It has already been shown that from June 1 to October 15, 1901, the out¬ 
flow from the lake (which is equal to the inflow less evaporation), was 22,940 
million gallons. The flow from the lake for the entire season, October 1, 1900, 
to October 1, 1901—approximated by a comparison of the discharge estimates 
for the above noted period of four months with the discharge estimate made by 
the United States Geological Survey for Tuolumne river at La Grange, but 
with the assumption that during the cold months of winter, including Febru¬ 
ary, the run-off per square mile of area was for the high mountain area only 












50 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


one-half of the average for the river’s entire drainage basin—is found to have 
been about 50,000,000,000 gallons. This is about four times the proposed 
capacity of the reservoir. 

But this run-off is due to a precipitation of rain and snow probably in 
excess of 50 inches, while the ordinary seasonal fall may not exceed 36 inches, 
and the minimum may be as low as 18 inches per annum. 

Applying the percentages of run-off indicated in the Progress Report of 
1900-1901, as a means of determining the probable run-off due to seasons of 
ordinary and of minimum precipitation, the result 20,000,000,000 gallons, and 
8,700,000,000 gallons to be expected from the 84 square miles of area directly 
tributary to the lake. 

It is to be noted, however, in this connection, that other streams, particu¬ 
larly Cherry creek and Falls creek—the former with a drainage basin of 103 
square miles, the latter with a drainage basin of 39 square miles—can, at 
comparatively small expense, be made tributary to Lake Eleanor, so that a 
yield far in excess of that of its own watershed could be secured if at any 
future time required. 

On the assumption that each square mile of the watershed area of Cherry 
creek and of Falls creek could be made to contribute to Lake Eleanor reser¬ 
voir one-fourth of the quantity estimated for each square mile of the drainage 
basin directly tributary to the lake in an ordinary year, and one-half in a year 
of minimum rainfall, it will be seen that this region is capable of producing 
and delivering into the reservoir in a year of minimum rainfall about 4,500 
million gallons of water in excess of the suggested reservoir capacity. 

The construction of a reservoir at the Lake Eleanor reservoir site forms 
no part of the water supply project, as now made the basis of a cost estimate. 

The water flowing in the upper sections of Tuolumne river, and particu¬ 
larly in such streams as those which enter Lake Eleanor, is much less affected 
by erosion from the hillsides than is the case with streams in the lower por¬ 
tions of the Sierra Nevada and our other California mountains. 

Most of the precipitation being in the form of snow, the water which 
reaches the stream is the result of the melting of snow deposits, which takes 
place so gradually and continuously that soils remain saturated and run-off 
takes place with a very small amount of soil erosion. 

The water of Tuolumne river is ordinarily, therefore, clear, and the natural 
flow of the river in excess of such water as may be required by prior appro- 
priators who have vested rights in the flow of the stream, will be available for 
diversion to San Francisco, except possibly during and immediately after the 
first storms of winter. 

Although stored waters, whether in Lake Eleanor or, as will be hereafter 
shown, in Hetch-Hetchy valley, would be sufficient for the needs of San Fran¬ 
cisco, the fact remains that generally from December until some time in June 
or July, so much water will be afforded for diversion by the natural flow of 
the river that the stored water used need not be drawn upon during this 
period. Stored water will therefore be required for seven or eight months of 
the year. 

The above noted storage capacity of Lake Eleanor, without any allowance 
for evaporation, would be equivalent to a continuous flow of about 60,000,000 
gallons per day for seven months. Estimating the evaporation from the res¬ 
ervoir surface at 2*4 feet per annum over an area of 800 acres for the period 
during which the water surface is below the level of the waste weir, the yield 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


51 


of Lake Eleanor may be assumed at 57,000,000 gallons per day for seven 
months of the year. 

Storage capacity in Lake Eleanor reservoir, however, is not restricted to 
an elevation of 50 feet above the present Lake surface. The storage works 
should be so planned that at some future time the dam can be raised, thereby 
greatly increasing the storage capacity of this site, making it possible to utilize 
to best advantage the large run-off of years of ordinary and maximum rainfall 
with the additions to be expected from the areas which can be added, as 
already stated, to the natural collecting ground. 

The fact may also be again noted that in the drainage basin of Cherry 
Creek and Lake Eleanor there are many small lakes which can be converted 
into storage reservoirs of considerable capacity, and that such storage would be 
equally as available as that of Lake Eleanor for use in San Francisco. 

It has seemed important to call attention to these features in order to 
show that the accepted project of utilizing at this time Hetch-Hetchy Valley 
alone for storage purposes is not the only feasible means of securing an ample 
supply of stored water in those portions of the high Sierras tributary to 
Tuolumne River. Lake Eleanor is equally favorably located and the water 
liberated from it would reach Tuolumne River and would be diverted from 
the river and brought to this City along the same route that would be fol¬ 
lowed by the water from Hetch-Hetchy Valley. 

Water liberated from a reservoir at Lake Eleanor would flow in Eleanor 
Creek to Cherry Creek about 3^2 miles, in Cherry Creek to Tuolumne River 
about 7 miles and in Tuolumne River a distance of about 2^2 miles to the 
point at which it is proposed to divert water from Tuolumne River into the 
canal, which is to be the upper section of the artificial conduit from the River 
to San Francisco. 


HETCH-HETCHY VALLEY. 

The proposed water works, for the utilization of that Sierra Nevada source 
of supply which at present seems the most available, will include storage 
works on Tuolumne River at Hetch-Hetchy Valley. 

As already described in the progress report of the water supply investiga¬ 
tion for the year 1900-01, the gorge of Tuolumne River widens out at a point 
about 30 miles westerly from the summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
forming a beautiful valley very similar to the Yosemite, on a smaller scale. 
The Tuolumne River leaves this valley in a very narrow gorge, which forms 
an unusually favorable site for a masonry dam. 

It is proposed to convert the valley into a reservoir by the construction of 
a dam or high weir, which will raise the surface of the river about 150 feet 
above the present floor of the valley. The surface area of the reservoir which 
would thus be created will be about 1180 acres. It will extend up stream 
from the dam about 5 miles. Its greatest width will be about 3000 feet. 

The dam will have to be carried to bed-rock. Its foundation surface will 
be at a considerable depth below the present river bed. This depth could not 
be ascertained with precision and, for estimate purposes, has been assumed at 
25 feet over the entire area between river banks covered by the structure. 

The dam at its base will have a greatest width of about 136 feet. Its 
crest length will be about 400 feet. It is proposed to give its top such shape 
that, at the maximum height of water flowing over the structure, there will be 
no tendency to form a vacuum between water and down stream face of the 


52 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


masonry. The cubical contents of this dam, including abutments, have been 
estimated at 71,600 cubic yards of masonry. 

As the proposed reservoir and this dam will obstruct the trails which 
at present enter Hetch-Hetchy Valley, it is proposed to construct, in connection 
with this dam, a bridge that will be amply sufficient to accommodate all 
travel. A road will be required from Hog Ranch into the Valley, a distance 
of about seven miles. 

The dam is to be constructed of rubble masonry laid in cement concrete. 
Sand and rock for the concrete are obtainable in Hetch-Hetchy Valley. Ce¬ 
ment in this location, on account of remoteness from railway stations, will be 
expensive. These facts have been duly considered in making estimates of costs 
of the proposed works. 

The water-shed area of Tuolumne River above the point at which the dam 
is to be constructed, is about 452 square miles. As explained in the progress 
report already referred to, it is an ideal collecting ground for water to be 
used for the supply of a large city. 

This upper region, drained by Tuolumne River, lies at a high altitude, 
nearly all of it at elevations in excess of 5000 feet, ranging from this eleva¬ 
tion to a maximum of over 13,000 feet. By reason of the severity of the cli¬ 
mate that prevails in this water-shed and its inaccessibility, it is uninhabited 
and uninhabitable. All, except the extreme northeasterly portion thereof, lies 
in the Yosemite National Park, and may, therefore, be expected to receive all 
the protection against possible pollution that could be desired. 

It is estimated that the mean annual rainfall in this water-shed is at 
least 36 inches, and that the mean annual run-off exceeds 14 inches. In years 
of maximum precipitation, in which probably twice the amount of moisture 
falls as in normal years, the run-off will be more than double this amount. 
In years of minimum precipitation, it is probable that the run-off will fall to 
less than half of this amount. 

It is probable that the rain which fell in the winter of 1900-01 in the 
region tributary to Hetch-Hetchy Valley, was in excess of 50 inches. The 
gaugings made by this department, as hereinabove noted, indicate an aggregate 
run-off from tributary water-sheds or a delivery of water into Hetch-Hetchy 
Valley from May 30, 1901, to October 15, 1901, of about 123,000 million gal¬ 
lons. This alone is nearly four times the storage capacity of the reservoir 
and does not include the winter and spring flow. 

Approximated on the basis of river fluctuations at La Grange, and on the 
assumption that during the cold winter months the rate of run-off from the 
water-shed above Hetch-Hetchy was only one-half as great as from the entire 
area tributary to the river at La Grange, it is estimated that the inflow into 
Hetch-Hetchy Valley due to the rainfall for the season 1900-1901 was about 
260,000 million gallons. 

For a season of minimum precipitation, when the fall of rain and snow 
throughout the water-shed may be equivalent to only 18 inches of rain, it is 
estimated that run-off would be about 5.4 inches. In such a year the amount 
of water reaching Hetch-Hetchy Valley would still be about 42,000,000,000 
gallons, or more than enough to fill the proposed reservoir. In this respecR 
therefore, the site appears to be all that is desired. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


53 


The storage capacity is indicated in the following table: 


Contour Elevation. 

Water Surface 
Area. Acres. 

Contents in Million 
Gallons. 

Remarks. 

3630 



Valley surface near dam. 

3640 

31 


3650 

100 



3660 

380 



3665 

510 

0 

Proposed outlet elevation. 

36 Vu 

580 

890 

3680 

681 

2935 


3690 

747 

5253 


3700 

801 

7782 


3710 

840 

10463 


3720 

880 

13273 


3730 

920 

16213 


3740 

960 

19289 


3750 

1000 

22486 


3760 

1050 

25855 


3770 

1100 

29347 


3780 

1180 

33071 

Proposed crest of overfall dam. 


The location of a reservoir on a stream with a large tributary water-shed 
is sometimes a disadvantage, because if the stream be one whose waters are 
heavily charged with sediment, or if gravel and sand be transported or rolled 
along its bed in large quantities, a rapid filling up of the reservoir space may 
result, thereby reducing useful storage capacity. 

In the case of Hetch-Hetchy Valley, a disastrous effect of this kind by 
sedimentation is not to be feared. As has already been explained, compara¬ 
tively little soil and hillside erosion results from the melting of snow, and 
nearly all the precipitation in the water-shed tributary to the Hetch-Hetchy 
Valley is in the form of snow. 

Then, too, a very large part of the mountain surface in this water-shed is 
bare granite. The many small lakes and flats into which and across which 
many of the tributary streams, as well as the main river, flow, ^act as in¬ 
terceptors of sand and other material that may be carried by the water and 
in a large measure prevent its reaching Hetch-Hetchy Valley. The very ex¬ 
istence of the many lakes in this drainage basin is evidence that sedimentation 
is slow and not to be feared. 

Should an accumulation of sand nevertheless, after a series of years, 
actually take place in the upper end of Hetch-Hetchy Valley, means can 
readily be found to restrict further accumulation by restraining the greater 
part thereof before it reaches the Valley. The main basin, within which such 
materials could be restrained, is about 25 miles above Hetch-Hetchy Valley, 
being the Tuolumne meadows, a flat area of very large extent, at the lower 
end of which is a fairly good reservoir site. It should be noted also that in 
case sediment should ever make any marked inroads upon the storage capacity 
of Hetch-Hetchy Valley, that the dam forming the reservoir can be raised and 
and the storage capacity can thereby be considerably increased, as will readily 
be seen by extending the table of storage hereinabove presented. 

The water stored in the reservoir will be allowed to flow through outlet 
tunnels, one of which is planned through solid rock around either end of the 
dam. This outflow will be controlled by properly arranged gates. 

During the winter and spring months, after the reservoir has been filled 
to its utmost capacity, all water reaching the site will pass over the crest of 
the dam, the shape of which has been specially designed to give this water 
pouring over the dam and down its lower face proper support and, as it 























54 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


leaves the dam, a practically horizontal direction, so that a tendency to under¬ 
mine the dam will be reduced to a minimum. 

Information is lacking concerning the maximum rate at which water will 
reach the reservoir from the 452 square miles of tributary high water area. 
It is probable that this maximum will occur at times when the drainage basin 
is well covered with snow and copious warm rains are falling. Rainfall rec¬ 
ords and rates of precipitation are in this case of but little avail in determin¬ 
ing the maximum discharge. 

The rate and duration of freshet flow will determine the height to which 
the water surface of the reservoir will rise above the crest of the dam. It is 
possible that the maximum rate of flow over the crest of the dam may reach 
50,000 second-feet. At this rate the depth of water on the crest of the dam 
would be about eleven feet. An additional foot in depth would add about 7,000 
second-feet to the amount of flow. 

The maximum flow noted during the time covered by the records of your 
department in 1901 occurred on June 29, at which time about 7,620 second- 
feet were flowing in the river at the point where it leaves the Hetch-Hetchy 
Valley. 

The flow of Tuolumne River is so large during the months of January 
to June inclusive, sometimes even during the months of November and De¬ 
cember, that it will not be necessary, as has already been stated, to draw dur¬ 
ing these months upon the water that has been stored in the reservoirs. At 
other times, the water from Hetch-Hetchy reservoir will be liberated at the 
rate required for use in San Francisco, or in any amount that may be de¬ 
sired, for transmission to those reservoirs near San Francisco in which it is 
to be held in reserve for emergency purposes. 

The flow of Tuolumne River into Hetch-Hetchy Valley is always in excess 
of storage capacity of the reservoir, so that a full reservoir is to be assumed 
at the end of July each year. Evaporation from this date to the beginning of 
the rainy season will probably not exceed 2j4 feet. 

Evaporation will take place from a water surface area of 1,170 acres at 
first, which area will be gradually reduced as water surface is lowered. Ap¬ 
plying the above aggregate amount of evaporation to 800 acres, about two- 
thirds of the maximum area, then about 653,000,000 gallons of water may be 
noted as lost by evaporation. The rest of the stored water (33,071,000,000— 
653,000,000), 32,418,000,000 gallons, is equivalent to nearly 89,000,000 gal¬ 
lons per day for a full year and to 135,000,000 gallons per day for eight 
months of the year. 

Comparison of this flow of Tuolumne River during the same period at La 
Grange (see p. 55), and an assumption with reference to the contribution of 
the high mountain watershed during the cold winter months, will enable an 
approximation of the entire seasonal flow. The winter was one practically 
without warm rains. It was snowing in the high mountains while raining at 
lower altitudes. It is probable that the run-off per square mile of area was 
only 25 to 30 per cent as great during October, November, December, January 
and February, from the watershed areas of Lake Eleanor and of the upper 
Tuolumne River as it was from the lower altitudes. To approximate a result, 
it may therefore be assumed that the depth of run-off from the 452 square 
miles tributary to Hetch-Hetchy Valley was only one-half as great during these 
winter months as for the entire 1501 square miles of the river’s watershed at 
La Grange. The run-off, as shown by the gaugings at Hetch-Hetchy Valley, 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


55 


compared with the La Grange records, was about 50 per cent greater in the 
summer months from the high mountain area than from the entire watershed. 
During the months of March to May, for purposes of this approximate esti¬ 
mate, it may be assumed to have been at least equal to the run-off depth aver¬ 
aged for the entire drainage basin of the river. For the entire season from 
October 1, 1900, to the end of September, 1901, depth of water that has actually 
run off may therefore be noted as follows: 


October to February (inclusive) . 6 inches 

March to May (inclusive).12 inches 

June to September (inclusive).16 inches 


Total .34 inches 


This run-off from 452 square miles of watershed area represents about 
260,000 million gallons of water, or over seven times the storage capacity of 
the reservoir. 


DISCHARGE ESTIMATES. 

TUOLUMNE RIVER AT LA GRANGE BY THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL 
SURVEY FOR THE YEARS 1900 AND 1901. 



*1900. 

*1901. 

Month. 

Discharge in 
Second Feet. 

Run-off Depth 
in Inches. 

Discharge in 
Second Feet. 

Run-off Depth 
in Inches. 

January. 

2,384 

1.83 

3,338 

2.56 

February. 

967 

0.67 

7.202 

5.00 

March. 

2.343 

1.80 

3.715 

5.78 

April. 

2.389 

1.77 

3.951 

2.93 

May. 

6.796 

5.23 

8,029 

6.18 

Tune. 

5.291 

3.94 

9.380 

6.97 

July. 

694 

0.53 

3.697 

2.84 

August. 

43 

0.03 

784 

0.60 

September. 

11 

0.01 

175 

0.13 

October. 

1.228 

0.94 

211 

0.16 

November. 

2,536 

1.89 

574 

0.43 

December. 

1.332 

1.02 

1,337 

1.02 


The Year. 

2.160 

19.66 

3.533 

31.60 




UPPER CANAL SECTION. 

The water from Hetch-Hetchy reservoir will flow in Tuolumne River 
about 16 miles to a point about one mile below Jawbone Creek. At this point 
a masonry weir, or over-fall dam, about 25 feet in height, will serve as a 
structure for raising the water surface of the river above the extreme high 
water plane, bringing it within reach of a headgate through which the water 


*Note: In 1900 the La Grange Mining Co/s Canal, diverted above the 
guaging station, flowed 24 sec. ft. continuously from Jan. 1 to June 23, and 
12 sec. ft. from June 24 to October 20, and 10 sec. ft. from October 21 to 
December 31, 1900; it flowed 10 sec. ft. from January 1 to March 31, 1901, 
and 7 sec. ft. from April 1 to July 28, 1901. 







































56 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


will flow into a tunnel; thence by canal and tunnel along the mountain slope 
on the south side of Tuolumne River, a distance of about 29 miles to the west¬ 
erly extremity of a mountain spur which extends northwesterly from the 
Deer Flat country. 

The canal will have a fall of about 4 feet per mile. Tunnels and in¬ 
verted siphons are to have twice this amount of fall. The capacity of the 
canal is to be about 150 second-feet; with an ultimate capacity that can be 
obtained by lining bottom and sides with concrete, somewhat in excess of 250 
second-feet. The tunnel capacities will be 250 second-feet. The bottom width 
of the canal will be 9 feet; the proposed depth of water, 5 feet; the crest 
height of the outer canal bank is to be one foot above water surface; the side 
slopes of the canal are to be safe slopes, determined by character of material, 
ordinarily about one vertical on one-half horizontal. 

A plane-table survey of this canal location has been made in order that 
a definite location of canal and tunnels could be projected. From the divert¬ 
ing dam to the termination of this upper canal section, there will be 18 tun¬ 
nels, having an aggregate length of about 38,710 feet. The length of the 
longest tunnel on this line will be 4,300 feet. 

South Fork of Tuolumne River will be crossed in iron pipes, forming an 
inverted siphon, carried over the stream on a steel bridge. The length of the 
pipes forming this siphon will be 1,700 feet. 

Deer Creek is to be crossed in a similar manner, the length of the neces¬ 
sary pipes being 1,950 fept. It is proposed to use two pipes having a diameter 
of 48 inches in each case. 

The tunnels will be through Jiard rock, but little of which will require 
lining. The tunnels are to he floored with concrete and their sides are to be 
lined with concrete. The character of the material penetrated by the tunnels 
being necessarily to a certain degree uncertain, it is for estimate purposes as¬ 
sumed that about one-sixth of their length will be lined. This has been 
taken into consideration in estimating the cost of tunnel work. Diagrams 
are herewith presented showing the proposed tunnel construction. The maxi¬ 
mum clear width of tunnels is to be 7.5 feet, the clear height in the center 
9 feet. 

The canal will come into service without bottom or side lining. Should 
it at any time be found necessary to line the canal or any part thereof, either 
for the purpose of increasing flow or of decreasing leakage, the dimensions 
proposed are ample to permit such modification of construction without re¬ 
quiring additional excavation. A lining with concrete, assumed at an average 
thickness of 6 inches on bottom and sides of the canal, would increase its 
carrying capacity from an estimated amount of 150 second-feet to over 250 
second-feet. 

Rain water accumulating on the hillsides above the canal is to be inter¬ 
cepted by a proper system of small ditches which will lead the water into 
ravines, for which a crossing over or under the canal will be provided in each 
case, as may be best adapted to local conditions. 

The head works of the canal are to be so arranged that any driftwood 
carried by the water will be deflected past the canal inlet and that, when the 
river is turbid, the canal system can at once be out of service. Below the 
headgate there will be an arrangement for intercepting sand and for sluicing 
the same from the canal back into the river. 

This arrangement will consist of an enlarged and deepened canal section 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


57 


about 150 feet long. The canal in this section is to be lined with concrete. 
The outer bank will here be a spill-wall with top at proposed high water 
elevation. The depressed canal bottom will form a sump 3 feet in depth for 
the accumulation of sand and silt, which can from time to time be swept out 
by opening sluice gates which are to penetrate the canal bank at the lower end 
of the sump. Just below the sump, regulating gates will control the canal 
flow. All surplus water passing the headgates and reaching this point will be 
discharged over the spill-wall back into the river. 

The dam itself is also to be equipped with waste gates and sluices, so 
arranged that an accumulation of sand or gravel in the river channel at the 
head of the canal can readily be sluiced from above the dam into the river 
below. 

The elevation of water surface at the intake of the canal will be at about 
1,943 feet above city base. The termination of the canal on the mountain 
spur above referred to will be at elevation 1,786 feet above city base. This 
point of termination lies directly above Bear Gulch, a small south side tribu¬ 
tary to Tuolumne River about a mile above Moccasin Creek. 

From this point, water will be dropped through pressure pipes to a power- 
station for development of power which is to be used in pumping water at 
Altamont over Livermore Pass. 

BEAR GULCH POWER STATION. 

From the canal termination as above described, the descent to the pro¬ 
posed power station at Bear Gulch, is 766 feet. 

An installation for water supply alone, based on a delivery of 60,000,000 
gallons per day, will make two pipes from canal termination to the power 
station necessary. These pipes will have a length of about 1,950 feet. They 
are to be of the riveted type in their upper portions, lap-welded with expanded 
joints in their lower sections. They are to have diameters of 48 inches at 
their upper ends, being reduced successively to 42, 36 and 30 inches, at which 
diameter the power station will be reached. 

The pipes will have a direct alignment, being either entirely without 
horizontal curvature or will have at the most one slight deflection from a 
direct line. The pipes are to be buried in the ground. The hillside on which 
they will be located is scantily covered with soil, has a fairly smooth surface, 
and is in every respect favorable for the support and thorough protection of 
the pipes. 

Power will be developed by impact wheels of the Pelton type. Three of a 
capacity of 4,000 horsepower each are proposed. These wheels are to be 
direct-connected with generators of electricity and the water passing from 
them will be discharged into a small receiving reservoir, from which the flow 
will be into two pipes, each 48 inches in diameter, that will form an inverted 
siphon across Bear Gulch for the delivery of water into a lower canal section. 

It is proposed to have three generators of electricity, each of a capacity 
of 2,000 kilowatts, at the power station. The electricity generated, after pass¬ 
ing through step-up transformers, will be transmitted a distance of 75 miles, 
at a tension of 40,000 volts, to the proposed pumping station, located about 6 
miles to the eastward of Altamont at the westerly edge of San Joaquin 
Valley. 

The power house will be located on the flat top of a spur of the mountain 


5S 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


very favorable as a site for this purpose. It will be at an elevation of about 
350 feet above the water surface of Tuolumne River and about Yi mile dis¬ 
tant from the river. The power house is to be a substantial structure with 
massive foundation and a superstructure mainly of iron. It is to be well 
equipped with all of the appliances that will be necessary to make the installa¬ 
tion convenient and complete. 

The switch-board is to be of the best type known for the purpose and is 
to be located between the generators and transformers. The current will be 
carried to the pumping station on three wires. It is estimated that for the 
power acquired at the pumping station alone about 305,000 pounds of copper 
wire will be required. 

This power station is to be supplemented by a second power station 
located about 15 miles further west, at Dry Creek, as will hereafter be de¬ 
scribed. 

A road is to be constructed from Moccasin Creek to the proposed Bear 
Gulch power station in order to make this site conveniently accessible. The 
length of this road, which will cross over Moccasin Creek on the same bridge 
which is to carry the Moccasin Creek siphon, will have a length of about 2 
miles. 

The water leaving the water wheels at this power station will be collected 
in a reservoir lined with concrete and in part supported by concrete walls 
which will have a capacity of 1,981,000 gallons. This will be cut into the 
western and southern slopes of the spur on which the power house is located. 
It is to have a length of about 550 feet, an irregular width of about 45 feet, 
with a depth of water of about 10 feet. It will serve as pressure box for the 
iron pipes crossing Bear Gulch. 

At times when the water wheels and the electrical generators at this 
power station are out of service, the water arriving at the top of the hill by 
canal will be discharged down the mountain slope in a ravine which enters 
Bear Gulch several hundred feet west of the power station. From this ra¬ 
vine, a short canal is to be constructed to lead this water into the station 
reservoir. It will thus be possible to keep up the supply of water of the lower 
canal section at times when the power station is temporarily out of service. 

The station reservoir is to be subdivided into three divisions. The cen¬ 
tral one will serve as pressure box for the out-going pipe line; each of the 
others will act as a settling basin, from which sand or other material brought 
down from the mountain by the water can be sluiced into Bear Gulch. 

LOWER CANAL FROM BEAR GULCH TO DRY CREEK. 

All of the water not required for delivery into San Francisco, which 
either passes through the Bear Gulch power station or which follows the by¬ 
pass, as above described, will be discharged back into Tuolumne River by way 
of Bear Gulch. 

The water for delivery to San Francisco, after passing through the pipes 
725 feet long, which form the inverted siphon over Bear Gulch, will enter a 
canal cut into the mountain slope on the south side of Tuolumne River at an 
elevation of about 350 feet above the river surface, flowing in the first sec¬ 
tion of this canal about one mile to a second inverted pipe siphon, which will 
carry is across Moccasin Creek. 

The Moccasin Creek siphon will consist of two riveted pipes, each 48 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


59 


inches in diameter, which, after crossing Moccasin Creek on a bridge, wilj 
gradually rise above the river to a discharge into a second section of the lower 
canal. The length of these pipes will be about 5,400 feet. For part of the dis¬ 
tance, they will be located on a hillside in somewhat difficult ground. In case 
of actual construction of this siphon, a further careful study of the location will 
be necessary, as it may be possible to improve upon the location assumed as 
the basis for the present cost estimate. 

The second section of the lower canal will extend from the termination 
of the Moccasin Creek siphon to Red Mountain Bar. The first half of the dis¬ 
tance between these points is fairly favorable for canal construction. The 
lower portion thereof is on broken, rocky and, occasionally, on a very precipi¬ 
tous mountain slope, and several short sections thereof are to be put in tunnel. 

There are three tunnels projected for this canal section, having an aggre¬ 
gate length of 2,165 feet. The length of canal above the crossing of Tuolumne 
River at Red Mountain Bar will be 34,455 feet, making the aggregate length of 
this section from the power house to intake of siphon across Tuolumne River 
at Red Mountain Bar, including all tunnels and stream crossings, about 8.1 
miles. 

At Red Mountain Bar the water will be carried across Tuolumne River in 
two 48-inch riveted pipes, 5,200 feet in length, supported at the river crossing 
on a bridge 500 feet in length, to be built in three spans, one 100, two each 200 
feet in length. The maximum pressure on this pipe line will be equivalent to 
a head of 375 feet. 

The water discharged by this siphon on the right or northwesterly bank of 
Tuolumne River will flow for a short distance, about 640 feet, in an open canal. 
It will then pierce ai ridge lying between Tuoulmne River and a small creek 
flowing in a southwesterly direction, parallel with the river, by tunnel 2,660 
feet long. It will be carried across this creek in pipes 4,450 feet long; thence 
by tunnel 1,130 feet long through another narrow ridge; again by pipe across 
a small creek, and then in a tunnel having a length of 11,430 feet into the wa¬ 
tershed of Dry Creek. A short canal will then carry the water northwesterly 
to a point from which the descent into the lower portion of the Dry Creek 
basin is rapid. This point will be reached by the water at an elevation about 
917 feet above City Base. 

The topography of the ground is such that two small reservoirs can here 
be arranged which will serve as regulators of flow to the proposed Dry Creek 
power house. A survey of one of these reservoirs has been made. No survey 
of the other, except at the point where its dam would be located, is available. 

The advantage of making a reservoir of the site which has not been sur¬ 
veyed, was not definitely recognized at the time the surveys were made in the 
field. The net storage capacity of the one reservoir which has been surveyed, 
may be noted at about 50,000,000 gallons. 

Both of these reservoirs are to be formed by earthwork dams. 

The dam for Reservoir No. 1 is to have its crest at elevation 931 feet 
above the City Base. It will have a maximum height above present ground 
surface of 21 feet. Its top is to be 24 feet wide; its water face is to have a 
slope indicated by a rise of one foot in two and one-half; its land face one 
foot in four. A stripping of five feet is assumed to be necessary over the en¬ 
tire area covered by the dam. The length of the dam will be 500 feet. 

The dam for Reservoir No. 2 will have a length of 815 feet. It will be 
bent somewhat out of a straight line. Its crest will be at elevation 922 feet 


60 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


above City Base. The top width of the dam is to be 24 feet, its water face is 
to have a slope of one foot vertical on three horizontal, and its land face one 
foot vertical on four horizontal. A stripping of five feet is assumed to be 
necessary over the entire area covered by the dam. 

In the case of both structures, drain ditches to intercept local storm wa¬ 
ters are to be provided; also 20-inch cast-iron slush-pipes and gates. 

The outlet structures for Reservoir No. 2 is to serve as a road bridge and 
also as a pressure box for the pipes leading to the Dry Creek power house. 
It is to be built of concrete. This structure will also serve as the inlet gate 
for a by-pass canal, at a suitable point on which a regulating gate and waste- 
gate will facilitate the control of the flow to the Dry Creek power station. 

The tunnels on the canal route between Tuolumne River and the drop to 
Dry Creek will be through slaty formations. It is assumed that they will re¬ 
quire lining throughout. They and the pipes on this section are to have a 
fall of eight feet per mile, as already indicated for similar structures on the 
upper canal section. The proposed cross-section of these tunnels is shown in 
diagrams. 

The total length of canal, inverted siphon, and tunnels, from the Bear 
Gulch power station to the head of the pipe line leading to the Dry Creek 
power house, is 14.56 miles. 

The outflow of the reservoir at the head of the pipe line to the Dry Creek 
power house will be controlled by a concrete structure. Means will be pro¬ 
vided for discharging from this structure into the pressure pipes, or past the 
same into a canal which will skirt a projecting point of the hill, dropping its 
water into a ravine which will pass the Dry Creek power station, reaching the 
proposed intake reservoirs at the head of the San Joaquin Valley pipe line. 

The natural drainage into the two reservoir sites at the head of the Dry 
Creek pressure pipes will be intercepted by ditches that will lead the same past 
the reservoirs, in order that turbid rain water may not be mingled with the 
water held for delivery to San Francisco. 

These two reservoirs are not only regulators of the amount of flow to the 
Dry Creek power house, but will also act as settling basins in which any sand 
or dust that may have been blown into the canal water will be intercepted. 

These reservoirs are so close together that, if in the course of time it be 
found desirable to make an independent connection of the first or upper one, 
directly with the pressure pipes to the power house, this can be done at a 
comparatively small expense. Such connection is not thought necessary at the 
time of installing the works and will probably never be required. 

DRY CREEK POWER STATION. 

The water from the equalizing reservoirs at the head of the Dry Creek 
pressure pipes will be delivered to the power station in two pipes of the same 
type as proposed for the Bear Gulch station. The drop in this case is, how¬ 
ever, only 330 feet, and it will not be necessary to use any lap-welded pipe in 
the lower end of the line, as was proposed for Bear Gulch station. 

The upper ends of the pipes are to have diameters of 48 inches. This will 
be reduced, as the power station is approached, to 42 inches. The length of 
the pressure pipes will be 3,770 feet. The pipes are to be buried, so as to 
afford greatest possible protection and to remove them as far as practicable 
from the influence of temperature changes. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


61 


The power station will be located on slightly sloping ground at the side 
of a ravine, or small creek, which is tributary to Dry Creek. 

■Power is to be developed by three water wheels of the Pelton type, each 
1,500 horsepower, direct—connected with three generators of electricity of a 
rated capacity of 1,000 kilowatts each. Power-house equipment is to be simi¬ 
lar in all respects to that already described for the Bear Gulch power sta¬ 
tion. The electric current is to be fed into the wires from the upper station. 

The water leaving the water wheels will flow into an intake reservoir lo¬ 
cated in the same ravine in which the power station is located, and which will 
serve as a regulator of flow to the main pipes crossing the San Joaquin Valley. 
This reservoir is to be formed by a concrete dam about 35 feet high. It will 
have a crest length of 200 feet, will be slightly arched up stream, and will be 
thoroughly equipped with outlet structures to screen and control the water 
flowing into the pipes, and to drain the reservoir when necessary. 

The natural flow of the creek passing the power station and entering this 
reservoir, is to be intercepted by canal and carried along the hillside around 
the edge of the reservoir to a discharge into the creek below the dam. This 
arrangement is necessary to prevent the run-off from an undsirable catchment 
area from mingling with the water intended for delivery to San Francisco. 

The general arrangement of regulating reservoirs, of pressure pipes to the 
Dry Creek power station and of this intake reservoir, is shown in diagram 
herewith submitted. 

The elevation of the power house is 580 feet above City Base. The water 
surface in the intake reservoir will be at 567 feet above City Base. 

MAIN PIPE LINE ACROSS SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. 

From the intake reservoir at the Dry Creek power station, the water will 
be /carried across San Joaquin Valley in two riveted pipes, each 48 inches in 
diameter. The first 12 miles of these pipes will be over slightly rolling ground 
located just to the north of the main channel of Dry Creek. The general 
course of this portion of the line is almost due west, with a slight deflection in 
the last portion of this section of the pipe toward the south to the township 
line between T. 2 S, and T. 3 S. The course of the pipes will be thence west¬ 
erly, following this line over very favorable sandy ground. 

Stanislaus River will be crossed on a steel bridge, and, on approaching the 
San Joaquin River, the pipes are to be supported by a long trestle structure in 
order to keep them above the plane of the high water at times of overflow. 

This arrangement is thought necessary in order to keep the pipes acces¬ 
sible at all times, and for the additional reason that the soil, in the district 
subject to occasional submersion, is of a more or less clayey character, im¬ 
pregnated to some extent with alkalies, being in part at least a class of soils in 
which iron and steel have a shorter life than in drier, sandy soils. 

San Joaquin River is a navigable stream at the point where the pipe line is 
to be carried across. It will therefore be necessary to submerge the pipe at 
this point. It is proposed to excavate a deep trench across the river into 
which the pipes are to be lowered. Three pipes, each of a diameter of 36 
inches, will at this point be substituted for the two 48-inch pipes. 

These three pipes, after the river is crossed, will be reunited in two, and 
the two pipes, each 48 inches in diameter, will be carried westerly, gradually 
ascending the west side plain of the San Joaquin Valley to an elevation of 


62 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


about 120 feet at a point about 16 miles west of San Joaquin River, where the 
direction will be changed toward the northwest and to a termination at a 
pumphouse reservoir located about six miles east of Altamont. 

The pumphouse reservoir will be located in or near the N. W. Y\ of Sec. 
20, T. 2 S., R. 4 E. It is to be formed by an earth dam having a maximum 
height of 35 feet. The crest length of this earth dam will be 920 feet. Its top 
width will be 24 feet. Its water face will have a slope of one foot vertical on 
three feet horizontal, and its land face a slope of one foot vertical on four feet 
horizontal. Water surface in this reservoir is to be at 185 feet above City 
Base, and its capacity will be 65,500,000 gallons. 

The length of the pipes across San Joaquin Valley will be 60.5 miles. The 
main pipes will terminate in a concrete structure, sub-divided into compart¬ 
ments in such a way that water delivery can be effected either into the pump 
station reservoir, or direct to the suction pipes leading to the pumps. The by¬ 
pass arrangement is to be such that water from either pipe can be sent into 
either of two suction pipes leading to the pumps at the pumping station. 

From this concrete structure, discharge pipes will lead into the reservoir 
terminating in a concrete inlet structure, combined with which will be a fore¬ 
bay at the head of the suction pipes leading to the pumps. 

Much of the pipe across San Joaquin Valley will be constructed of iron of 
minimum thickness, J^-inch. The lowest portions of the pipe line near the 
crossing of the San Joaquin River will be under a pressure of 330 feet. The 
thickness of shell required at this point will be J^-inch. 

This main pipe line is to be entirely covered. Its top will be at 2 to 3 
feet below the surface of the ground. At all depressions, blow-off gates will 
be arranged; at all summits, air valves and small cocks in manhole plates, to 
release accumulated air. There will be manholes on the pipe about 660 feet 
apart. 

Very few streams will be crossed by the pipe. Small water courses will 
generally be conducted underneath the pipe, the pipe being, where necessary, 
raised out of the ground and boxed in. 

There will be no gates on this pipe line except two regulating gates about 
five miles west of Dry Creek power station and at the crossing of San Joaquin 
River, where the arrangement is to be such that any of the three submerged 
pipes can be connected with either of the two main lines of pipe. The regu¬ 
lating gates on the 48-inch pipes are to be 36-inch gates. The pipe diameters 
will be contracted to this dimension where these gates are to be set. 

All portions of the pipe line will at all times be accessible, except the 
submerged pipe at the crossing of the San Joaquin River. The length of this 
submerged pipe will be about 700 feet. 

ALTAMONT PUMPING STATION. 

The water reaching the pumphouse reservoir already described at the Alta¬ 
mont pumping station is to be pumped over Livermore Pass. The pumps for 
this purpose are to be driven by electric motors. As already explained, the 
power necessary for this purpose will be generated at Bear Gulch and Dry 
Creek power stations. 

At the ordinary efficiency of first-class water wheels, generators and 
transmitters of electricity, motors and pumps, it is probable that the quantity 
of water required for delivery in San Francisco, with its drop at the two 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


63 


power stations, will not generate the full amount of power required at the 
pumping station. Any deficiency in power will be readily supplied by a deliv¬ 
ery at the Bear Gulch power station of more water through the upper canal 
than is required for delivery to San Francisco. This surplus water will flow 
from the power station back into Tuolumne River. Its use will in no wise in¬ 
terfere with the rights of the irrigation districts lower down on the river. 

The pumps at the pumping station are to be rope-driven from the electric 
motors. The installation will include six pumps, each having a capacity of 
10,000,000 gallons per day. 

Three of these pumps are to be equipped with steam engines. These are 
to be of the compound condensing type, and are ordinarily to be out of service. 
They will come into service only in cases when the delivery of power by elec¬ 
tricity is temporarily interrupted. Under such circumstances, it is not neces¬ 
sary to prescribe a type of engine which can be operated at the highest at¬ 
tainable duty. The cost of such an engine would be so much greater that in¬ 
terest on the increased investment would much more than offset the greater 
cost of fuel that will be required for short periods of occasional service. 

The proposed project includes all necessary boiler equipment and steam 
piping to make the installation complete. Fuel, to generate steam, when re¬ 
quired, will ordinarily be oil. The arrangement is to be such that either oil 
or (coal can be used, and space is to be provided for storage of both oil and 
coal. 

The pumphouse will have an iron framework and will be covered with 
corrugated iron. It is to be equipped with traveling cranes to make the han¬ 
dling of heavy machinery convenient. 

The water from the pumps will be delivered into two 48-inch riveted force 
mains, and will be carried in them to a reservoir about three-quarters of a 
mile west of Altamont. This reservoir will have a water surface at an eleva¬ 
tion of 740 feet above City Base. The pumps will be required to lift the water 
from the pump reservoir to this Altamont reservoir, the maximum lift being 
585 feet. Adding friction in the pipes, will make the total pressure in the 
force mains at the pumps equivalent to a head of about 625 feet. 

/The position of the force mains is shown in plan, also in profile on dia¬ 
grams submitted with this report. The location may be varied somewhat from 
the actual line of survey. Means at command have not permitted making all 
of the detailed studies that would have been necsesary to select best location 
throughout the entire line. The diagrams show a location which is feasible 
and which has been made the basis of the cost estimate. 

altamont reservoir. 

Altamont reservoir, into which the force mains from the Altamont pump¬ 
ing station will discharge, is to be constructed about three-quarters of a mile 
westerly from Altamont station. It lies in a small valley that can be converted 
into a reservoir by the construction of an earth-work dam. The top of the 
proposed dam will be about 40 feet above the present ground surface. Its 
crest length will be 700 feet; its crest width, 20 feet; its water slope, one foot 
vertical on three feet horizontal, and its land slope, one foot vertical on four 
feet horizontal. 

The pipes entering the reservoir will terminate in a concrete structure. 
The outlet structure will also be of concrete, arranged to screen and to effect 


64 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


a proper control of the water entering the next section of the main pipe line 
which will extend from Altamont reservoir toward San Francisco. 

The force mains leading into the reservoir are to be connected with the 
outgoing pipes, in order that the water may, when required, be delivered into 
the mains leading to San Francisco without passing through Altamont reser¬ 
voir. 

The water surface area of the reservoir when full will be 48.3 acres. Res¬ 
ervoir contents are indicated in the following table: 


Contour 

Elevation 

Elevation Above 
City Base 

Water Service 
Area—Acres 

Contents 

Gallons 


723 

713 




725 

715 

4.2 

1,380.000 


730 

720 

13.2 

15,655.000 


740 

730 

27.7 

82.631.000 


750 

755 

740 

745 

48.3 

206.954.000 

W. S. 

Top of Dam 





MAIN PIPE LINE FROM ALTAMONT TO SAN FRANCISCO. 

Water is to be conducted from Altamont reservoir to San Francisco in 
two 48-inch riveted pipes, similar in character to those described as crossing 
San Joaquin Valley. The route of this pipe wfill be westerly from the Alta¬ 
mont reservoir practically parallel with the Southern Pacific Railroad, passing 
through one short tunnel about 800 feet in length before entering Livermore 
Valley. 

The pipes will cross Livermore Valley in a direct line, passing about two 
miles south of Livermore and crossing the ridge of hills between Valle and 
Calaveras Creeks about on the line of the wagon-road from Livermore to 
Mission San Jose. The summit of this ridge will be pierced by a tunnel 5,200 
feet in length. 

Calaveras Creek will be crossed on the line of the wagon road. The ridge 
between Calaveras Creek and the Santa Clara Valley is low enough to be 
crossed by placing the pipe in a deep cut. It is preferred, however, to substi¬ 
tute for the deep cut and a somewhat longer pipe line, a short, more direct 
tunnel. This tunnel will have a length of 2,020 feet. The gradient assumed 
for the pipe from Altamont reservoir to the westerly, or lower, end of this 
tunnel is six feet per mile. 

Both of the main tunnels on the pipe line from Altamont reservoir are 
to be placed at such elevation that water can be discharged into them without 
carrying the pipes entirely through the tunnels. Their elevation will be prac¬ 
tically at the hydraulic grade line of the pipe. 

The length of conduit from Altamont reservoir to the lower end of the 
second main tunnel is 19.4 miles. From this point to a proposed receiving 
reservoir in San Francisco, the distance is 50.7 miles. It is proposed to enter 
San Francisco, or rather to cross the ridge which will have to be pierced by 
tunnel to reach the site of the receiving reservoir within the limits of San 
Francisco, at an elevation of about 214 feet. 

Assuming the same gradient for the hydraulic grade line westerly from 
the Mission San Jose tunnel as that noted for the conduit above this tunnel, 
it is found that water may be dropped 80 feet at its point of entrance into 





















Sheet N'o. 1 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky. dated July 28th. 1*102 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

APPLICATION FOR HETCH HETCHY 
RESERVOIR RIGHT OF WAY 

ON TUOLUMNE RIVER 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 


srtnr or "L* 

sotavrr M ibf/A/ss/ss Y 


^amy alfy MM, says A* -I /Aa /nymaer empAy.*AAy JAAffS OfWflAA/. /Aa/ /A, survey ,/w 

Janas reserva/s, at, unAaa'of — rtww aw wy o' o s/aAr .nes/af Z> , fan? ~Aa rA o f/ecf oat /<*- ,n Jeme/Xr Aaoss S /0"J* 

Af' 4^ //sfOnt. sax/ s/oXr Aroty 3'iyuave ovx/ 3/%*/ Any rs, sfona maunt/ an /oo^e of A- Aeonna S OCT07 f 9096 J /? ,fom /rua 
fa-nas V Ie./~S>> 7. /£' /0 A3 an naif Aoun/asy af 7~/A7, fteof At AS , Aa/ny /A* /n/Aa/po/nf a/ sa// storey an/ fAa oo/nr 
aAava fAa /3a Aaf con four, as ~o*rs Ana/, m/enetSs fAa A/as/Ames/ an,/ of /Aa or/s of fAa p/oposet/ o / o/r> /Aenca /o/foamy /Aa 
taafjas axSoiiAmaes os sa/ A/fA at fAa auam.nony/ny faAf nafrs. fosmcny AAa panmafrs af /Aa /Jo &,/ cmfaus os nafas Jrra/ of to .o' 
•lJ&,Cte*£JnraaL. ~~ a Aata'aaaa efsA/en nonc/sec/as*/ seaas/yano (//7***) oenrs. nos /naJr Ay A,*, 

os fny/nee'. aneTgaXr A, 3 ayfJ>yr/Sy eammenomf, on /Aa. f6**ry af June /90 /, ov& e/xfny an /Aa /* otry cf Ju^if / 90 /_ 
ana- Ana, fAa scrtey a' s~o safarsa^s. K ano> fAa/ Sf/3 serray ,s anruna/ej sapsnanfeS upan /A/s mao as*/ Ay /Aa orrompam-rno feA/ nafas 
■**/ no a so o' /Mr Ana/, sfrrem as j Sanaa, iatf '• osaf /fa fAa saxfsasrsr,. aaanryoS as sAann on /At s amp. 

ScrAsssr/aa' anf sntisn fir Ae£at!Joe /A/I -4 otry af (Pc/oAes /9CV 


/^V 

AAfary/iaAt ,n an/As fAa fa~nfy 

'//sisSyvUs SOaX */ POArea 


RESERVOIR SITE ON THE TUOLUMNE RIVER 

TUOLUMNE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

T. IN., R 20 E. and T. IN., R 21 E„ M. D. B. & M. 
Area 1170.45 Acres Capacity 107,426 Acre Feet 

Maximum Height of Dam, 150 Feet 
Scale: 1000 ft. = 1 in. 



/. D /Wflff/, tfo Ae/rAy cerf/Zy fAof // f6reen aAo suAscs/Aad /fX-^*ceampunyA->y offoinir . /s fAa fno/nees emp/^et/Aj mr , 'Aof fAa su/yey of /A/ son/ resasvo/r os aeeusokA 

tpny fc/c/noiksi aos moats isnobs/ny avrAos//y, fAof/^Aa saaf /vsc/ra/s os //yincjanAnfan fA/S /nofi anf Ay so.*/ fa/fnoAfi nos<f<£>o/»/Ay/nc on /A* /s&i/oy of 
/ /Y VKj. 'S afrsc s/Aa / os £//oaj _ fosnsnane/ny of a ibaAtr mas/of "o ~ f/v/n a-AicA a A/oof oaf /A '/n rfa/nofor Aeons 5 <47* ff 06- ** /&o' </'jfas,f, so/of sfsAv Arrnp 
T/eonfesfosZ^ons^, /C. /0. J. on a’osr Axsno'asy af f/ Af, /?eVf, Af // 30/f, Asm? fAa fn/Ao//>o/Af of sort/survey onf /Aefio/nr mtera fAa /So faof eosrAxsr. 
of fAe osrs of /Aa osoy/osetf Oon? . /Ae/xe /i/Zoa/ny /Ae ooo/srs one/ f/i/onroi os so/ fts/A sn /Ae ocro/sr/ion y/n<o fei/ snt/as . 6/s? /no fAa pott/m a far ofAAa 

_ _ sarvo/r, M /Aa o/ooe “of Aoy/nn/no, o/n/ oon/o/n/ny o /o/o/o/to of e/nvn Acrnf/af an/f savenfy an/Z^^ (//Aff s )aesas. aas moc/e Ay A/sn os my fno maos osxf 

/Aa ? 0 <f> otsy of fc/ne /9<?/, o/x/ anef ny on/Aa /*efoy of /fJyvsr /9A/ J o/x/ /An/ /Ae suway of sox/ rasa/vtxr oort/roArfy re/snrsen/s e? /ens/ //na /rAxA/s /As 
, on/ f/rof so,S survey /s otrero/t/Ar/y se/mrsas/sfo 1 upon /A/s /no/? o/nf Ay /As escoan?/>n/’y/ny feff noAfJ, es/xf no //As or Arfa Arc/, ifi/tam or s/seo/7? Aetf, /s usef fir /Aa 
' ■' ‘ 'As n?no Aos Aesn o/eyonxf /oAafAxf f>r /Aa onprovo/ of /As SfC/?/f4tfY of /Aa //Vfffi/Of.jn on/ar/Ao/Arnay oAAxn /AsAnnrf/s of/A/a As/ 
/tc/ Alnbs/ny As .Qyn/s of }1(rj/ /ArouyA oar/o/n AnrAs, //eservof/ons , orxf o/Asr fi/AA/o /a/T^s 4r*f /Aa AiyA/ of Airy /or /Aeproyioseo /sservo/r 

JuAscr/Aa/ eyxf saam A> Ao&ra/na /A/s r3&/&y af AA/Afs /SO/ 


J~s^o/a onS /ie/ /any /n sfana .nauri 
or /rates Are/, .n/essec 's /As A/oslA/res/ 

/SO 6sf ean/aor, os a-o/es /era. a 
unfar my aufAo'/fy , Commeno/ny 6 
prop as*/ aoOrrAne of so/o' rrserra/ 

So,/ nrserttxr eseapr os sAo/rn on c~ 

of fosiynrss oppr*xra /Z/roary /3 s * Z90/. en/rf/r/; 





































































Sheet No. 2 


To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th. 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 


LAKE ELEANOR RESERVOIR SITE 



APPLICATION FOR LAKE ELEANOR 
RESERVOIR RIGHT OF WAY 

ON TUOLUMNE RIVER 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 


TUOLUMNE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 

Area 1159.21 Acres Capacity 47,290 Acre Feet 
Maximum Height of dam 95 ft. 

Scale: 500 ft. =■= i in. 


a 2 A/or/A AZoc/rs/ /?/o6/o 




7orrrjA 


/ A/or//} AZous?/ fyoA/o 




jrA/r or cei/rao/tie ) a 

cou/rrr or sot meec/sco] 

/, %ZAZf£S O. P/ZZLA/Z, eZo Asrrdy ce/Z/Zy //ro/ ZZZ. 6/7ZZA/, s*Ao juSsen'SeeZ £> /Ae orcatnyary/fTp 
// /bo ZAp/reer emp/cy ec/ 6y sr?tf ; /Ae/ //te Ji/rvgy &T ja/Z susesvv/r «r accuro/a/y riytreser/etZ o» Ab/j rrtop arc/ Zy Abe Abe ocrcrrtparry/np Qp/cA ro/es s 

r7oe/s tsstcArrrry acs/Am/y ; Af/ /f# Jo/e/ roserro/r os reyresarZecZ ao /6/s ortZ Ay sore/ Z/e/eZ ro/es raj aaoy/ecZAy rrse 

OoAbe AS/A e/oy a/ Aespus/. /S0/, as Abe c/rZAs/e /oca/cr; cZ /be jo/e/ res&rro/r cZescr.decZ as Zo/Aets ■ Cofttotartc/rp' a/ o s/o/e 
rrsor/eZ O my snb/cA o Z/r AS o? cZ/ame/er /rosy /V -40 VP '33 Zee/ c/s/or/, 0 SumetZ psese sAs.tto 20 ' //? cZsor/r/er door, 

AZS/‘sf. 4/'Zee/ e>bsMr /; C7s7e/ 0 yvre Z0~ /’/7 cZ/orre/er Soars J. <Sf'/ SS Ate/ cZ/sAxr/, j'orcZ s/oZe Sorry J * spuore on/ 

3 ZeeZ Zortp , ye/sr 0 roc/ /ttoutcZ Aeorrrp A/ if7’i$C'S. 7083 ZeeZ cZ/sAor/ /rorr? poorer sec/ror? canoes- ce»ms7?ar? A> SCc/rOns 
A ^ j /~ ///; 1 /S£". Af.O. S 4 /f > Se/Ap Af /r/Z/oZ 00 // 1 Z 0 / so/eZ survey aocZ /Aeporn/ rvAere /Ae 89 /oo/ Cor/ouy or 
wo/or Soy#/, /AAmrecZs/Ae hosj/ e/xZ oZ /tbe arts 0 / /AeyroposecZ cZo /77 i Merce ZoAbtr/Ap Abe courses am/ cZ/j/o/tcoj as\je/ 

ZeeAb /A Abe occompary/Ap r /e/cZ s?a/es, Zorm/rp /Ae per/me/er 0 / Abe 89 /oo/ con/our, or suo/er /ere/. (Z Je,cS roserro/r, 

/o Me yArce 0 / Zeprm/Ap arc/ cora/orn/rp o /o/o/area 0 / e/erer AurcZrec/ one/ ///Ay r/Ag oocZ (//S9. *) acres , seas snoZe 
dyAorr exj 07y Zop/Aeor ore/unZer sny ou/AarS/y , fOo?/neoc/sip os? /Ae 27& e/oy oZ/*7oy /so/, 0 /?<Z eoc/rop 0-7 Me Z4? aby cZ 
i/one /SO/, osto/ Aba/ /Ao Sisrrey oZ s<o*Z rejerro/r- occc/ro/e/y reyreser/j a /ere/ Are tub/cA/s Abe proytxjetZAro/er /re oZ 
Me jo/o' reserror. ore/ Abo/ so/cZ surrey as occuro/efy reyreser/ec/ uyar /A/j n?oy omZ Sy Abe occoo?yor/s?y //e/cZ ro/es % 
ore/ r?o /a/e or Axe Sec/ s/reoor or j/reoss? Set/ <f use/ Aor Abe so/eZZeserro/r ere ay/ as jAom 00 Ab/s srpy, arc/ Mo/ /Ae 
ssToy Aar Seao yrsyorec/ /o 6e ///eeZ Zcr /Ae qtjororo/ cZ /Ae JZ~Z/x > Z7Z1Z'Y cZ Abe //VZZZ/Otf A? on/er Abor / r/oy oS/o/r 
/Ae Sene/s/s oZ /Ae eACZ aZ ZOA/6ZC JS paoryrecZ ZeSsuary AS&/0C/ er////ecZ 'ytr y/c/ Z’e/o/zry A? AbpA/s eZ TVoy /AroupA 
cer/a/r Zbr/s, ReservoA'ons , are/ c/Aer Zt/SAc ZorcZs zfreZAbe r/pA/ aZ troy /or Abe ysvyosetZ reserro/r /s o'es/reeZ /far 
/rri \r?//or , moruZoc/ur/ro purposes , ttb/er poteer arc/ o , or?es//e use 

juAscr/SeeZ o/uZ smzn Zo SeZre s7?e ZZs/s /S # e/oy oZ (Sc/oSer 790/ 


-ZR&Zr 


AMary Z\M/Sc in orO Ztr /Ate //$> art/ 0oua/y 
o' Sort Zrarcrjco, J/a/e a/ ZaA/brrto 


srerr arcoss/V*A'i* J 
courtrr or SOS A/SStt zj ) 

~a7Zo a S'*/>"”/> AO',h a&nf/rr 4r*r, /tJ/-£ *//i*/ ato/er/, arrryyr At 

1h pm S. CSS SSSre/ , J*Wc/4* C**9 

/Z S7’S8' Z /08J Zee/ eZ/s/orZ Aom puor/er secZ/oo carrer cosrrstsor A> sec A arts a or , . 

Z%Z°JZr,%Z'Z 9 *£/ZZrr Xrr 

JuAscrMoc/ otreZ jerorr? A Ze/ore ore Ab/s //** oby 0/ OcAoAer, /SOS. 




M/ary ZirZ/Sc at er^/%rMe Zeur/y 








































































































_ 


-- 


r .on 

• ,. •£ Tl-'l oatrtb 3/Jlo toqai v u u m oze oT 

Yjmus $rrr*w oocDV v . 1 / ; 









jqqA 

• yaw io tHOJifl ta5Vna«3a 

»3VI» ’tlMUJOUT MO 


)T *gu : 'iO dHACMl 












M -H 



it Y • V V .» f, • , » . -.- 

k w • .Yv . mss - 


I V. \V x-% ««, vtU 4. 

v-*-^ 

*WV- ^ 










































Sheet No. 3 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky. dated July 28th. VX)2 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

LAKE ELEANOR DAM SITE 
SHOWING A POSSIBLE LOCATION 
FOR A MASONRY DAM 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 



J»»rr *o*rr 




















•M • J8 i AT/ 

Tcrno^ 83 yn t/i/ j.mfjrr 

3T18 MAQ flOHA3J3 3XAJ 


HOr"AOOJ 3JSI380S A OMIWOH3 
MAQ YflWOSAM A HCH 

























Sheet No. 4 


To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th, 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

HETCH HETCHY RESERVOIR SITE 
ON THE TUOLUMNE RIVER 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 



i 


i 

























































Sheet No. 5 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th, 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 





















































































































































i t t i t ? t 


MiiiniiiiiiisiiHfiiiiimmnitp* 


vr Jlf 
$ 9 

N 




cv 


Ci 


J.' 


s 

> H 

Q a 


o 

20 


X 

o 

Ui 


ac 

UJ 


X 

o 

H 

Ui 

I 


U! 

3E 


»1 1> . i sTTTipT^ 


-Q 

C ? 
rv g 

v ~ 

^ a 
O u 

g? 

-u -• 

S g 

> ' 
£V S 


, u 

i l ;> 

• • ?x 



































































Sheet No. 6 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th. VI02 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

CANAL LINE and WATER SHEDS 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 







































































3 
O 
< 

O 

“9 

z 

< 

(/) U 2 

O ^ Ph 
QC 5 tn 
O n 



































































































■ 



BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 


Sheet No. 8 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th. 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

PIPE LINE 

ALTAMONT TO SAN FRANCISCO 

ON TUOLUMNE RIVER 


I 














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Sheet No. 11 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th. 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

PROFILE OF PIPE LINE FROM 
ALTAMONT PUMPING STATION 
TO SAN FRANCISCO 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 
































































































































































































































































































































































































































-C >■ 
f. 


" 

c ^ 

2 JZ 
X oo .. 

4> ^ >* 

— 

CL 
-' CL 

"S D 
« ^ 

73 . QC 

UJ 

H 

< 

£ 
o 

CJ 0Q 

f z 

? s 


r* 

* 

IT. 

V. 

* 


w 


% z 

§■ < 
e cn 

c 

o 

o 

cs 















































































































t! .oV! i*j*ri*! / 

.ilixs /lift TAW. )*i> . i :j to not) 1 'ru.'iiiM , ■ > I 

YJSSi.JS A3TA7/ (OglDHA >H HA £ 
T03105W JI3VW 3MNUJJ0UT 
























































































































































Sheet No. 13 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th, 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

CANAL SECTION 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 































' r .»>H 

- 0P! .dif£ yli/lb-jiEb .fAivrjHi) d . ' to iioqyi /n., ; .»T 

YJSSUe H3TAW G3SDHAH3 HAS 
T33L08S SI3VW 3HMUJ0UT 

WOITD32 JAMAO 



# 































O 1-1 

Z j= 

JZ 

■fl — 


-o 


■/. 

z 


W 

U 

o 



c 

a 


i- 


o 

c 



O 

u 

in 

u 

c 

re 

u. 

Uh 

c 

re 

C/3 


<\l 

If 


§ 



1 


I 

§ 


I 


1 

V| 





L/NED TUNNEL • S/DE L/NED TUNNEL 




























































s 







UJ 




s 

o 

-a 


Z. 

Ul 


< 


(V) 



s 



> *- 




i. 



c. 

3 

T-. 

O 

H 




s 







































Krr/Sca/So fit*/ f/e* adore C/ty /Sosa. 


PROFILE 


• Sheet No. IS 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th. 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

BEAR GULCH POWER STATION 
PIPE LINE 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 





/OO 200 300 400 300 

~ /erH?/S) of rtjo* 36/ f/. - 

4 S ' r/re//e 3 ~ 


6oo : too r aoo *So /ooo //oo 1 I200 /jdp /400 /sod, /soo T700 Y/600 

- /S3/Z-Jf.--/fA4./6*/?Jf-. /fM //SL+ - /+#> /SO '-if - /f/A M2- - 244//--jf - 2fM 27/ f/. -H 

4-42 * o/v - - *- 36 * nr*//*</ -*4»- JO ~/a/> t¥</3gt/, /"/ao^e3ja/si/j -- -*j 



PLAN 


'*°°° )/,, /,* 

t.C-A 


•cA-najs o/\s/to// /n /ncAo* 
deoe/ /o /eef 
c/some/er /n /ncAts 




- -C/is/o f f>+ 3 <.£%/ r c/f>/ - 

- . ffC . .., 































































































































































































































Tffl 337? PM7 Jo fVJoJJ 


Sheet No 16 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th. l'X>2 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

DRY CREEK POWER STATION 
RESERVOIRS AND PIPES 

ON TUOLUMNE RIVER 

BOARD OK .'PUBLIC WORKS 




































































































































































































ibr. i 

. 








vw v 

















WEJilfc «* 











"‘aar~ 


—J*: r X 


* — i \ 

r s*r :**&-&*«**& 




**Kvm t*<*o 
























































Sheet No. 17 

To accompany report of C E. Grunsky. dated July 28th, 1902 











































































i-O 4* 










































































f' Stt n fi 


oo 01 

O 
























































































































































1 


Sheet No. 19 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky. dated July 28th. 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

ALTAMOMT RESERVOIR 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 

■ -£» ' C ')C 77“- —Sftr—— 


























































































































I 































































































































Sheet No. 20 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th, 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

BELMONT RESERVOIR 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 


cAPAc/rr or rpspwo//? 








































































































































































Sheet No. 25 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th, 1902 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

SECTION, OCEAN AVE. TUNNEL 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 



L/NEO TUNNEL 























.o Vi 

b'tU.l) /As/. ifit) .3 /> lo Jioqyi va^ijOKDis .>! 

YJHHUZ H3TAW O0£DtfA>n tfAS 
T03105IM H3Viil 3KMJJ0LJT 

J3HMUT .3VA HA30O .V10IT03S 

<aao u jua'js ho ciH/.oa 





mu 


























vC C-) 
(VI g 

6 

Z js 
Id °0 

JZ 

CO 3 


H 3 

D 

"S 

T 3 

> 

m 

'Sj 

£ 

a 

oi 


W 

CJ 

w-t 

O 

-*— 

j- 

o 

Cu 

1 / 


a 

£ 

O 

(J 

o 

C 3 


>< 

CL 

CL 

O 


H 

D 


U CO 


C/1 UJ 

a: © 

LJ a 

H ‘ 

< 


O 

u 

c n 
U 

z 

< 

DC 

Lu 

z 

< 

c/i 


OS' 

UJ 

> 

2 

UJ 

z 

LJ 

_1 

O 

H 


? z 

o| 

5* 

Ll ^ 

°? 

to, 

z < 

oS 

H- O 
O 0 
UJ 
(/) 


Li 

pi 

o 

£ 

o 

H—< 

i-l 

CQ 

D 

CL 

CL 

O 

Q 

Li 

<** 

6 

CQ 


n [ 

cl 


































































































































































































































* -W Jj 3 ^ 5 

2 < o * Q l 

~ * “ tv i; 

' _ (V) 5 U S' 

C S — c s - 

*2.1 H * s 






1 m&»4 


flUH 






















































































































































Sheet No. 27 

To accompany report of C. E. Grunsky, dated July 28th, 1^)2 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER SUPPLY 
TUOLUMNE RIVER PROJECT 

SECTION OF MISSION ST. TUNNEL 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 















































tl .oW lo-irlr? 

'* :r '- v*ui. b-.lisb .fXWJJli) .3 .D t.» Hoqai fo ! :<4u. l .. . i 

YJ^SUa H3TAW O02DH/JR HA2 
T03LQJIS H3YIH 3HWUJ0LIT 

J3MMUT .T0 MOI03IM lO MOITO30 















— 
















































































































































































































































































































































































































5 



























































6 


r i 
£ 


CM 



Motss/iy 


/3c o 


































































-- —-— ------ 











































“ ws~ 


misvo 
















































































































































































(VI (VI 

o ^ 
^ js 

8 8 
-C >, 
^ 3 


T3 

1 ) 

-4-» 

OJ 

T3 

> 

ifl 

z 

3 

as 

O 


W 

CJ 

'o 


o 

a 

<D 


C 

cc 

a 

£ 

o 

o 

o 

C8 

o 

H 


> 

J 

CL 

CL 

D 

co 

DC 

LU 

h- 

< 

£ 

O 

cfi 

u 

z 

< 

DC 

La 

z 

< 

co 


E— 

U 

LU 

—3 

s 

CL 

e* 

LU 

> 

5 

LU 

z 

L3 

—J 

O 

LU 

H 


o 

> 

QC 

Ld 

to [2 

Ui c* 
DC O 


h 

w 

X 

H 

X 

D 

O 

Li. 

i 

>- 

h 

z 

u 

3 

h 


u 

cc 

CL 

Ll 

O 

Q 

K 

< 

O 

« 





* 


& ® 




JOA/ (J) 


7S? 







































































































Hi;---- 




































































































































































































































































































lO CM 
CO O 


£ 




CO 
CM 

jh >> 
Jl ~ 


"O 

o 


> 

J 

CL 

CL 

D 

cn 


re CL 

^ s 

H 


* 

v/) 

& 


< 

& 


o 

o u 

o 5 

r < < 

o QC 
? Li, 

V 

v- 

* z 
5 < 

c. c/) 


o 

u 

u 

G3 

o 

H 


*o 

«VJ 

i 


DC 


f~ 

L> 

UJ 

O 

ad 

CL 

Cd 

'JJ 

> 

cd 

LU 

z 


o 

H 


o 
> 
DC 
Li 
( t) 

U 

DC 

■ 

h- 

</) 

> 

h 

(/) 

DC 

Id 

> 

Z 

D 


u 

PC 

p 


u 

r—« 

PP 

L> 

Pm 

Pm 

O 

Q 

PC 

< 

o 

PP 



















































































cv 

C 


. 

a 

c 


u 

li 

cv> 

Li 

3 ) 

• 

H 

CV) 



H 

U 

u 


ac 

U) 

< 


U 

s 

5 

e 

u 

O 

c 




r. 

















































































































































































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


65 


Santa Clara Valley, still giving to the proposed 48-inch pipes their full re¬ 
quired capacity. It is proposed to make this drop at the westerly tunnel end 
in order to keep the pressure on the pipe crossing Santa Clara Valley as low as 
possible. 

I he route of the pipes from the Mission San Jose tunnel will be south¬ 
westerly, passing Mission San Jose and Warm Springs, around the upper end 
of the southern arm of San Francisco Bay, passing about three quarters of a 
mile to the southward of Alviso; thence westerly to the northward of Moun¬ 
tain View, gradually approaching the line of the railroad and ultimately paral¬ 
leling the same, generally parallel with a close-by wagon road, in a northwest¬ 
erly and northerly direction to an entrance into San Francisco by way of 
Colma. 

The location of the main supply pipes within the city will be on the 
westerly slope of the main peninsula ridge, at an elevation between 200 and 
220 feet, to and across the Ingleside property to the Ocean House road; along 
the Ocean House road a short distance, thence by tunnel to the easterly side 
of the ridge at about elevation 214 feet. 

From the easterly termination of the Ocean House road tunnel, the water 
will be carried to two receiving reservoirs, one of which, receiving reservoir 
No. 1, is to be located on the city property known as the House of Refuge lot. 
The other, receiving reservoir No. 2, is to be located east of Mission road, 
south of Amazon street. The water surface of both of these reservoirs is to 
be at 196 feet above City Base. The fall from the easterly tunnel termination 
to this water surface can be utilized for purposes of aerating, screening and 
measuring the water, as may be desired. 

The profile of the pipe line from Altamont reservoir to San Francisco is 
shown on one of the diagrams submitted with this report. 

The maximum pressure on this pipe, 468 feet, will be on those sections 
thereof near the upper end of San Francisco Bay. The greatest thickness of 
pipe there required will be 15-32 inch. 

In order to keep the pipe throughout its entire length accessible at all 
times, it is proposed to carry it on pile trestles over lands subject to frequent 
overflow, such as the broad gravelly bed of Mocho Creek. It will be carried 
over Valle Creek by a steel bridge, located alongside of the present wagon 
bridge. It will be carried over Calaveras Creek by a similar structure. At 
the upper end of the bay, where land is subject to occasional submersion dur¬ 
ing high stages of Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River, and where the soil is of 
a clayey character, the trestle support will have a length of five miles. 

On the east side of San Francisco Bay, as well as on the west side thereof, 
the pipes will cross a number of small water courses. Some of these will re¬ 
quire bridge structures. In other cases, the pipes are to be supported by con¬ 
crete piers. Where necessary, the concrete piers will be provided with wings 
of concrete for a proper support of banks. 

The bridges required to carry the pipe conduits ajre to be of steel with 
tubular or masonry piers. Small water courses will, in most cases, be passed 
under the pipes between concrete piers, placed ten feet apart. Trestles will 
be constructed with 15 feet spans, 4 piles in each bent. Pipes on trestles are to 
be well boxed in. 

On this pipe line, as in the case of the pipes across San Joaquin Valley, 
air valves, blow-offs and manholes are to be provided. Where a blow-off 


66 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


drains a short section of pipe only a few hundred feet in length, it is to be a 6- 
inch blow-off. All others are to be 8-inch. 

AUXILIARY STORAGE AND PUMP SYSTEM AT BELMONT. 

As this system of water works, with Tuolumne River as a source of sup¬ 
ply, is being planned entirely independent of and without reference to the es¬ 
tablished water works owned and operated by the Spring Valley Water Works, 
it is necessary, in order to safeguard the delivery at San Francisco, that a 
considerable amount of water should be kept available for this city’s use with¬ 
in a reasonable distance so that, in case of accident to any part of the works 
or interruption of service from any cause, the city may not be deprived of 
water. The necessity for such nearby storage has been referred to in the 
Progress Report. 

The arrangement proposed, in connection with the Tuolumne River pro¬ 
ject, is one that will combine storage of water with a pumping system. A res¬ 
ervoir site has been selected just west of Belmont. By the erection of a dam 
rising to a height of about 105 feet above the present ground surface, water can 
there be stored to the extent of 3,000,000,000 gallons. The water surface of 
this reservoir when full will be at an elevation of 177 feet above City Base; 
the crest of the dam at 180 feet. 

The dam at Belmont is to be of concrete, rising 105 feet above the valley 
floor. In the absence of precise information relating to the formation under¬ 
neath the surface soils, it has been assumed for estimate purposes that the full 
mass of masonry would have to be carried to an average depth of 40 feet be¬ 
low the ground’s surface from base to base of the hills upon either side of the 
gap to be closed. 

The dam is to have a length of 1,030 feet; its crest width will be ten feet, 
increasing gradually to about 105 feet. It would be arched up stream. About 
139,000 cubic } 7 ards of concrete would be required in its construction. 

The watershed area tributary to the reservoir site is very small, only 
about 2J4 square miles; consequently, but a small amount of water will reach 
the reservoir by drainage from surrounding hillsides. The reservoir will be 
filled with Tuolumne River water discharged into it through two 36-inch pipes 
leading from the 48-inch mains to a receiving box placed at the height of the 
grade line of the main supply pipes. The reservoir feed pipes would thus be 
made to serve as standpipes on the 48-inch mains. The delivery from the re¬ 
ceiving box to the reservoir will be by a chute built of concrete. 

The outlet from the reservoir will be by tunnel around the southerly end 
of the dam. In the tunnel will be two suction pipes leading to an auxiliary 
pumping station located near the railroad, just south of Belmont, where the 
water will be put under the pressure necessary to force it through the 48-inch 
mains to San Francisco. 

For this pumping station, three pumps each of a capacity of 10,000,000 
gallons per day are proposed. These pumps will never be in service, except 
when for any reason there is a temporary cessation of flow in the main pipes 
from Altamont. They will be required to pump against a head of about 150 
to 250 feet, according to the stage of water in Belmont reservoir. The reser¬ 
voir supply pipes will be connected with the pump discharge pipes so that they 
may serve as standpipes and pressure regulators. 

The pumps are to be operated by steam. Oil will be the fuel to be used. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


67 


The Belmont reservoir capacity is indicated in the following table: 


Contour Elevation 

Area of Water Surface 
Acres 

Contents. Million Gallons 

75 



80 

1.1 


90 

6.8 


100 

18.8 

41 

110 

36.5 

131 

120 

70.4 

305 

130 

99.3 

583 

140 

122.2 

945 

150 

141.0 

1,375 

160 

164.3 

1,874 

170 

202.1 

2.472 

177 

241.0 

3.000 

180 

257.3 

Top of Dam 


Although only 241 acres will be flooded when the reservoir is full, it has 
been assumed that a considerably larger area will have to be acquired by pur¬ 
chase to secure the site. 

CITY DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM. 

The City Distributing System, owing to the importance attached to the 
securing of exceptional facilities for fire protection, has received special atten¬ 
tion and has been planned with a view to securing maximum deliveries of 
water at the points where fires would prove most disastrous. At the special 
request of the Fire Department, the smallest pipes on main streets have been 
planned eight inches in diameter. This is in some cases, perhaps, in excess of 
immediate requirements but, as the pipes laid would serve from 50 to 100 or 
more years and the additional cost involved is small, it was thought advisable 
to comply with the request. The smallest mains in streets of secondary im¬ 
portance and where only one or two fire hydrants are to be served, are to have 
a diameter of 6 inches. 

The distributing system of pipes is to be of cast-iron, weights as follows: 

Six-inch, 34.0 lbs.; eight-inch, 49.3 lbs.; ten-inch, 66.3 lbs.; twelve-inch, 
85.0 lbs.; sixteen-inch, 127.5 lbs.; twenty-inch, 187 lbs.; twenty-four-inch, 
257.1 lbs.; thirty-inch, 365.5 lbs. 

The water delivered into the city through the two 48-inch mains will be 
discharged into two receiving reservoirs, the main one located on the House 
of Refuge lot at the intersection of San Jose and Ocean avenues, and the other 
east of Mission road, just south of Amazon avenue. The former is to have a 
capacity of 100,000,000 gallons, the latter of 54,000,000. The large capacity 
here indicated is necessary to tide over minor interruptions in the flow through 
one or both of the supply pipes. 

Both of these reservoirs, as well as the service reservoirs that will be re¬ 
quired in various parts of the city, are to be cut into the ground and will be 
lined with concrete. The depth of water is to be 20 feet with a bank height 
at least 4 feet above the high water surface. Each reservoir is to be suitably 
equipped with masonry inlet and outlet structures, and connected with the sup¬ 
ply and distributing systems of pipes. 

The arrangement of the discharge into the receiving reservoirs is to be such 
that the full volume of water reaching the city can be sent into either of them. 













68 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


For this reason, two 36-inch pipes are planned to extend the supply mains, 
from the controlling gate structure to receiving reservoir No. 2. The delivery 
into receiving reservoir No. 1, which is located close by the controlling gates, 
will be through two 30-inch pipes. 

Both of the receiving reservoirs are planned to hold water at elevation 196 
feet above City Base. From these reservoirs the water will flow in two lines 
of '48-inch pipe—each pipe being direct connected with each of the receiving 
reservoirs—to the main low level service reservoir at Eighteenth street, to the 
second low level reservoir at Twenty-fourth street and to two pumping sta¬ 
tions from which the higher levels of the city are to be served. 

For a distance of 900 feet on Mission street, from Crescent avenue to 
Charles street, these pipes are to be placed in a tunnel. The reservoirs and 
tanks on the low service system will be at or near elevation 175 feet. 

The city has been subdivided into districts designated “levels,” according 
to elevation. These districts, the service reservoirs, tanks, and the pipe sys¬ 
tems necessary to serve them, are shown in the plans which accompany this 
report. 

In addition to the receiving reservoirs, there are reservoirs and tanks to 
be provided as follows : 

LOW LEVEL. 

(All water by gravity from the receiving reservoirs). 

Eighteenth street reservoir—Elevation 170 feet; capacity, 8,332,000 gal¬ 
lons; located south side of Eighteenth street, west of Douglas street. 

Twenty-fourth street reservoir—Elevation 175 feet; capacity, 7,442,000 
gallons; located on north side of Twenty-fourth street, west of Sanchez street. 

University street reservoir—Elevation 175 feet; capacity, 10,502,000 gal¬ 
lons; located in University Mound tract, just south of the Old Ladies’ Home. 
Water by gravity. 

Lower Telegraph Hill tank—Elevation 170 feet; diameter 60 feet; depth 
16 feet; capacity, 318,000 gallons; located near northwest corner of Kearny 
and Vallejo streets. 

Lower Russian Hill tank—Elevation 170 feet; diameter 60 feet; depth 16 
feet; capacity, 318,000 gallons; located near northwest corner of Polk and 
Greenwich streets. 


SECOND LEVEL. 

Holly Park reservoir—Elevation 275 feet; capacity, 9,701,000 gallons; lo¬ 
cated in Holly Park. Water from the San Jose avenue pumps. 

Lone Mountain reservoir—Elevation 275 feet; capacity, 19,246,000 gallons; 
located on west side of Masonic avenue, north of Turk street. Water from 
the main city pumps. 

Potrero Heights tank—Elevation 275 feet; diameter, 80 feet; depth, 16 
feet; capacity, 565,000 gallons; located west of Arkansas street between Twen¬ 
ty-second and Twenty-third streets. Water from the main city pumps. 

Telegraph Hill tank—Elevation 270 feet; diameter, 60 feet; depth, 16 feet; 
capacity, 318,000 gallons; located on the north slope of Telegraph Hill, near 
Montgomery, between Filbert and Greenwich streets. Water from the main 
city pumps. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 69 

THIRD LEVEL. 

Ocean View reservoir—Elevation 400 feet; capacity, 1,790,000 gallons; lo¬ 
cated west of Plymouth avenue, between Thrift and Montana streets. Water 
from the San Jose avenue pumps. 

Flint Tract tanks, two—Each at elevation 400 feet; each 80 feet diameter; 
20 feet deep; combined capacity, 1,432,000 gallons; located on the south side 
of Masonic avenue, east of Levant street. Water from the main city pumps. 

Point Lobos tank—At elevation 375 feet; diameter 80 feet; depth 16 feet; 
capacity, 565,000 gallons; located in city cemeteries tract. Water from the 
main city pumps. 

Presidio Heights tank—At elevation 375 feet; diameter 80 feet; depth 16 
feet; capacity, 565,000 gallons; located at northeast corner of Pacific avenue 
and Lyon street. Water from main city pumps. 

Clay street hill tank—At elevation 375 feet; diameter 60 feet; depth 16 
feet; capacity, 318,000 gallons; located on Clay street hill, between Clay and 
Washington, Jones and Leavenworth, streets. Water from the main city pumps. 

Telegraph Hill summit tank—In masonry tower, for fire protection mainly; 
elevation 315 feet; diameter 20 feet; depth 16 feet; capacity, 35,000 gallons; 
located in Pioneer Park. Water from the main city pumps. 

Excelsior Homestead tank—Elevation 400 feet; diameter 60 feet; depth 16 
feet; capacity, 318,000 gallons; located near northwest corner of Japan avenue 
and Athens street. Water from the San Jose avenue pumps. 

FOURTH LEVEL. 

Upper Ocean View tank—Elevation 520 feet; diameter 80 feet; depth 16 
feet; capacity, 565,000 gallons; located near northwest corner of Orizaba ave¬ 
nue and Shields street. Water from the San Jose avenue pumps. 

Sunnyside Park tank—Elevation 520 feet; diameter 80 feet; depth 16 feet; 
capacity, 565,000 gallons; located in Sunnyside Park. Water from San Jose 
avenue pumps. 

Mansfield street tank—Elevation 520 feet; diameter 60 feet; depth 16 feet; 
capacity, 318,000 gallons; located on west side of Mansfield street, south of 
Woolsey. Water from the San Jose avenue pumps. 

FIFTH LEVEL. 

Belgrave avenue tank—Elevation 630 feet; diameter 80 feet; depth 16 feet; 
capacity, 565,000 gallons; located west of Lincoln avenue, between Clarendon, 
and Belgrave avenue. Water from the main city pumps. 

Buena Vista Park tanks—Elevation 550 feet; diameter 80 feet; depth 16 
feet; capacity, 565,000 gallons; located in Buena Vista Park. Water from the 
main city pumps. 

All tanks are to be constructed of sheet steel, and will be circular in form. 
Each one is to be supported by a foundation platform of concrete. The tank 
for the summit of Telegraph Hill is to be placed in an ornamental masonry 
tower-like structure, which will not only add attractiveness to the outline of 
the hill, but will also afford roof space with balustrade that will be made ac¬ 
cessible and will be an exceptionally fine view point. 

The combined storage capacity of all reservoirs on the city distributing 
system, including the two receiving reservoirs, will be 218,343,000 gallons. 


70 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


The pumps with which the water is to be elevated to the service reservoirs 
and tanks of the higher levels, are to be grouped in two pumping stations. 

The main city pumping station is to be located near the center of the block 
lying between Seventeenth and Eighteenth, Diamond and Eureka streets. This 
station is to be equipped with three double-acting, high duty pumps, each of a 
capacity of 7,500,000 gallons per day, and two each of 4,000,000 gallons per 
day. All of these pumps are to be operated by steam generated in boilers of 
at least 800 horsepower, rated capacity, and are to be provided with triple ex¬ 
pansion engines—the units having been designed with a view to securing unin¬ 
terrupted service and greatest economy of fuel. The larger pumps are to serve 
the second and third levels; the smaller pumps are intended for the higher 
levels. 

The second pumping station is to be located on the east side of San Jose 
avenue, opposite the northerly end of receiving reservoir No. 1. At this sta¬ 
tion, two pumps each of a capacity of 4,000,000 gallons are to be installed, with 
engines similar to those at the main city station. The boilers at this station 
are to have a rated capacity of at least 300 horsepower. 

Each of these pumping stations is to be equipped with heaters, condensers, 
feed pumps, overhead traveling cranes, oil storage tanks, tools, etc., necessary 
to make the installation complete. The buildings are to be of brick with at¬ 
tractive exteriors and appropriately finished interiors. 

ESTIMATE OF COST. 

Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir— 

Masonry dam, including abutments and allowances for 
excavation, clearing reservoir site, etc., (including 

71,600 cu. yds. masonry @ $12).$ 871,000 

Outlet tunnels 880 ft. long, 2 30-inch pipes, 4 24-inch 

gates on outlet pipes, 2 slush pipes and gates. 34,700 

Valve and gate towers, and bridge 390 feet long. 95,000 

Roads and road corrections. 25,000 

Keeper’s house, stable, etc. 3,000 

- $1,028,700 

Canal Headworks— 

Diverting dam, Tuolumne River, about 1 mile below Jaw¬ 
bone Creek .$ 

Headgates, sluice gates, etc., side-lined tunnel 500 ft long 
Canal 2,000 ft. long, sump, spillway, sluice and control¬ 
ling gates, drain ditching, etc. 

Keeper’s house, stable, etc. 

Roads and miscellaneous . 


73.200 

30.200 

33,700 

2,000 

10,000 


$149,100 













SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


71 


Canal from headworks to Bear Gulch; 20.27 miles canal, 
bottom width 9 feet, water depth 5 feet, capacity 150 


sec. ft. @ $35,600 per mile.$ 721,600 

36,210 feet side-lined tunnel, 7.5 feet wide, 9 feet high, 

@ $25 . 955,300 

3,650 ft. inverted siphon, 2 48-inch pipes, weight 1,278,- 

000 lbs., bridges over South Fork and Deer Creek. 136,700 

Drain ditching, cross-fluming, etc. 14,400 

3 ditch tender cabins . 1,500 

Roads, etc. 10,000 

- $ 1,839,500 

Canal from Bear Gulch to Dry Creek— 

7.56 miles canal @ $30,000.$ 226,800 

2,165 feet side-lined tunnel @ $25. 54,100 

15,220 ft. lined tunnel @ $36. 547,900 

17,735 ft, of inverted siphon, 2 48-inch pipes, weight 

5,601,600 lbs., and bridge supports for same. 560,000 

Drain ditching, cross-fluming, etc., 2 regulating reser¬ 
voirs, 150,000 cu. yds. earth, outlet structures, etc. 71,700 

2 ditch tenders’ cabins. 1,000 

Roads, etc. 5,000 

- $ 1,473,600 


Pipe line from Dry Creek power station to Altamont pumping station— 
Intake reservoir at Dry Creek power station, 2,150 cu. 

yds. concrete, outlet structures, drain ditching, etc.$ 32,500 

308,000 ft. of double 48-inch riveted iron pipe, weight 
113,561,000 lbs. from Dry Creek power station to Alta¬ 
mont pumping station, including 964 manholes, 220 air 
valves, 82 blow-off gates, 34,000 ft. 8-inch pipe, 2 36- 

inch gates, 1,204 bands, etc. 7,324,900 

34,700 lin. ft. of trestle, bridge over Stanislaus River and 

special pipe supports over small water courses. 429,100 

San Joaquin River crossing, 3 36-inch submerged cast 

iron pipes. 70,000 

5 pipe-walkers’ cabins . 2,500 

- $ 7,859,000 

Force main from Altamont pumps to Altamont reservoir— 

36,300 feet double 48-inch riveted iron pipe, weight 14,- 
954,000 lbs., including 12 air valves, 6 blow-off gates, 

250 ft. 8-inch pipe, 100 manholes, 134 bands, bridge 
over Mountain House Creek, 2,000 ft. double 24-inch 
by-pass at Altamont reservoir, 2 24-inch gates, etc.$ 971,500 


$971,500 

























WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


72 


Pipe line, from Altamont reservoir to San Francisco— 

361,000 ft. double 48-inch riveted iron pipe, weight 144,- 
149,000 lbs., including 1,104 manholes, 340 air valves, 

298 blow-off gates, 67,000 ft. of 8-inch pipe, 1,266 bands, 

8 36-inch gates, etc.$9,065,800 

3 lined tunnels, 800 ft., 5,200 ft., and 2,020 ft. long @ $36.. 288,700 

Ocean avenue tunnel in San Francisco, 4,000 feet long, 

@ $36 . 144,000 

Bridges, trestles and culverts, including Arroyo Valle 
bridge 210 ft. long; Calaveras Creek bridge, 420 ft. 
long; Coyote Creek, Guadaloupe River, and Campbell 
Creek bridges, each 70 ft. long; San Francisquito 
Creek bridge, 100 ft. long; San Mateo Creek bridge, 

70 ft. long; besides 34,921 ft. of trestle and 57 culvert 
and short bridge structures, aggregating 1,450 feet in 


length . 435,600 

Pressure break near Mission San Jose. 20,000 

Gate house and controlling gates in San Francisco at 

receiving Reservoir No. 1. 12,500 

6 pipe-walker’s houses . 3,000 

- $9,969,600 

Bear Gulch Power Station— 


2 pressure pipes 1,950 ft. long, 48, 42, 36 and 30-inch di¬ 
ameter, iron and steel .$ 60,000 

By-pass, and intake reservoir below power house, at 

head of siphon across Bear Gulch. 53,000 

Power house and equipment, including 3 2,000-Kilowatt 
generators, excitors, transformers, switch-board, etc., 
also 3 3,000-horsepower waterwheels, regulators, etc., 

2 dwellings, men’s quarters, stable, grading, etc. 260,000 

- $373,000 

Dry Creek Power Station— 

2 pressure pipes, 48-inch riveted, reduced to 42-inch, 3,770 

ft. long, weight 1,156,600 lbs.$ 95,000 

By-pass canal, waste-gates, etc. 12,000 

Power house and equipment, including 3 1,000-Kilowatt 
generators of electricity, excitors, transformers, 
switch-board, etc., also 3 1,500 horsepower water¬ 
wheels, regulators, etc., 2 dwellings, men’s quarters, 

stable, etc. 135,000 

- $242,000 

Transmission Lines— 

75 miles of pole line from Bea.r Gulch power station to 
Altamont pumping station, including raised crossing 
over San Joaquin River, 75 miles of copper wires 
from Bear Gulch and 60 miles from Dry Creek to 
Altamont pumping station .$ 106,700 


$106,700 



















SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


73 


Altamont Pumping Station— 

Station reservoir, earth embankment 140,000 cu. yds., in¬ 
let and outlet structures, wasteway, slush pipe, drain 

ditching, concrete forebay, gates, screens, etc.$ 83,000 

Pumphouse, boiler house and equipment, including 6 
pumps each of a capacity of 10,000,000 gallons per 
day, rope-driven from electric motors, 3 to be also 
equipped with compound condensing steam engines, 
boilers, piping, etc., 2 residences, men’s quarters, 


stable, etc. 1,070,000 


Altamont Reservoir— 

Earth embankment 115,300 cu. yds. concrete outlet struc¬ 
tures, keeper’s house, road correction, etc.$ 79,400 


Belmont Reservoir— 

Concrete dam 139,000 cu. yds. inflow pipes and inflow 
structures, outlet tunnel and outlet pipes, wasteway, 

etc.$1,434,000 

Belmont Pumping Station— 

Capacity 30,000,000 gallons per day, 3 compound con¬ 
densing direct-acting steam pumps, each 10,000,000 
gallons capacity; suction and discharge pipes, pump¬ 
house, boilerhouse, oil tank, coal bin, etc., 2 dwell¬ 


ings, keeper’s house, men’s quarters, stable, etc.$ 397,000 

Telephone System— 

About 125 miles with poles, about 75 miles on poles of 
transmission line .$ 20,000 


Add 10 per cent for engineering and contingencies, say..$2,709,900 


Lands and litigation, water rights and rights-of-way, 
outside of San Francisco .$ 918,000 


Total, for works exclusive of the City Distributing 
System . 


CITY DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM. 

Receiving and Service Reservoirs and Tanks— 

Receiving reservoir No. 1, capacity 100,000,000 gallons 

(House of Refuge Tract).$279,800 

Receiving reservoir No. 2, capacity 54,000,000 gallons 

(Mission road and Amazon street). 254,800 

Service reservoir No. 1, Lone Mountain, capacity 19,246,- 

000 gallons . 98,400 

Service reservoir No. 2, University street, capacity 10,- 

502,000 gallons . 74,500 

Service reservoir No. 3, Holly Park, capacity 9,701,000 
gallons. 59,100 


$ 1,153,000 

$ 79,400 


$27,096,100 

$29,806,000 

$30,724,000 




















74 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Service reservoir No. 4, Eighteenth street, capacity 


8,332,000 gallons . 52,300 

Service reservoir No. 5, Twenty-fourth street, capacity 
7,442,000 gallons . 36,500 


Service reservoir No. 6, Ocean View, capacity 1,790,000. 14,200 

Steel Tanks. 


Capacity 
Diameter Gallons 


Flint Tract (two).. 

.80 

ft. 

1,432,000 

$32,000 

Belgrave avenue. 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Buena Vista Park. 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Upper Ocean View. 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Sunnyside Park.. 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Point Lobos avenue.. 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Potrero Heights . 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Presidio Heights.. 

.80 

ft. 

565,000 

14,000 

Mansfield street. 

.60 

ft. 

318,000 

8,000 

Excelsior Homestead.. 

.60 

ft. 

318,000 

8,000 

Clay street hill. 

.60 

ft. 

318,000 

8,000 

Telegraph Hill (in tower). 

.20 

ft. 

35,000 

9,400 

Telegraph Hill No. 2. 

.60 

ft. 

318,000 

8,000 

Telegraph Hill No. 3. 

.60 

ft. 

318,000 

8,000 

Lower Russian Hill. 

.60 

ft. 

318,000 

8,000 


City Pumping Stations. 

Main city pumps; 3 each, 7,500,000 gallons per 24 hours 
capacity, 2 each 4,000,000 gallons capacity, 5 250-horse¬ 
power boilers, piping, buildings, brick chimney, oil 

tank, crane, etc.$310,000 

San Jose avenue pumps; 2 each 4,000,000 gallons per 24 
hours’ capacity, 2 250-horsepower boilers, buildings, etc., 
complete . 106,000 


City Pipe System. 

Wrought-iron, 48-inch riveted, 47,940 lin. ft., weight 


6,664,000 lbs. @ $10 per lin. ft. $479,400 

Wrought-iron, 36-inch, 12,650 ft., weight 1,419,000 lbs. 

@ $8 per lin. ft. 101,200 

Cast-iron: 

30-inch, 26,690 ft. @ $8,536 (inch specials). $227,830 

24-inch, 65,120 ft. @ $6,074 (inch specials). 395,540 

22-inch, 9,950 ft. @ $5,300 (inch specials). 52,740 

20-inch, 19,620 ft. @ $4,636 (inch specials). 90,960 

16-inch, 221,210 ft. @ $3,403 (inch specials). 752,780 

12-inch, 332,800 ft. @ $2,359 (inch specials). 785,080 

10-inch, 163,880 ft. @ $1,905 (inch specials). 312,190 

8-inch, 1,254,300 ft. @ $1,490 (inch specials). 1,868,910 

6-inch, 150,510 ft. @ $1,131 (inch specials). 170,230 

4-inch, 100,000 ft. @ $0,817 (inch specials). 81,700 


$1,057,000 


$416,000 


$5,318,560 





































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 75 

Total weight of cast-iron pipe, 170,385,000 lbs. 

Total weight of cast-iron specials, 3,762,000 lbs. 

Setting 3,560 gates and 9,000 specials. 23,120 

Setting 5,000 hydrants, 1,660 double, 3,340 single and 

purchase of 1,885 new hydrants. 177,550 

Meters, including 2 Venturi Meters, each of 30,000,000 
gallons capacity. 105,000 


Gates on distributing system of pipes. 

24 30-inch gates, 53 24-inch gates, 8 22-inch gates, 16 
20-inch gates, 185 16-inch gates, 494 12-inch gates, 
272 10-inch gates, 2,090 8-inch gates, 250 6-inch gates, 


166 4-inch gates. 139,000 

Mission street tunnel, 900 ft. long. 48,600 

Pipe yard, repair shop and equipment. 50,000 

- $7,336,830 

Add 10 per cent for engineering and contingencies, say.... $733,170 

- $8,070,000 

City real estate, for pipe yard reservoirs and tanks. $737,000 


Total, City Distributing System. $8,807,000 

SUMMARY. 

The works for collection, storage and delivery of water.$30,724,000 

The City Distributing System. 8,807,000 


Total .$39,531,000 


The foregoing estimate of cost will hardly need explanation beyond the 
fact that iron has been assumed as the material to be used in the construc¬ 
tion of the riveted pipe, and not steel. Iron has been in successful use for 
works of this kind, notably in California during the last 40 years. Steel, on 
the other hand, as a product suitable for the manufacture of riveted pipe, has 
been available but a few years and its general serviceability, particularly its 
life under the peculiar conditions under which a water pipe serves, remains 
to be demonstrated. 

The cost of iron delivered by rail in California for this work has been 
assumed at 3.25 cents per pound. This is over three-quarters of a cent per 
pound more than would have been estimated for steel. 

For wrought-iron pipe, no iron of less thickness than one-quarter inch is 
contemplated. 

COST OF OPERATION. 

There is necessarily much uncertainty connected with any estimate of an¬ 
nual expenditures for maintenance and operation of a water works system, as 
herein described. Notwithstanding this fact, it has seemed desirable to pre¬ 
sent some information relating hereto; because, in comparing cost of water 
from several sources, it is just as important to know the cost of operation as 
it is to know the first cost of the works. 

On the assumption that the Tuolumne River Water Works would come 
into service with a delivery in the neighborhood of 30,000,000 gallons of water 
per day (the present daily consumption being less than 27,000,000 gallons), the 
expense of operation and maintenance (not including deterioration), has been 
estimated as follows: 

















76 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


General Management. Per year. 

1 Superintendent of service. $4,800 

1 bookkeeper . 3,000 

12 assistant bookkeepers. 18,000 

1 cashier . 3,000 

2 receivers . 3,600 

3 clerks . 3,600 

2 adjusters . 4,800 

25 collectors and meter statement takers.. 36,000 

2 stenographers . 1,800 

1 messenger ...,. 900 

Office and legal expense. 15,000 


Engineer Department. Per year. 

1 chief engineer . $8,000 

4 assistant engineers .*. 7,200 

4 draughtsmen . 6,000 

4 rodmen . 3,600 

1 stenographer . 900 

Expenses . 10,000 


City Distributing System. Per year. 

Alterations and repairs, say. $25,000 

Receiving and service reservoirs. Per year. 

Salaries and wages. $9,600 

Expenses . 3,000 

Extension of pipe system, labor, street repairs, etc. 100,000 

Material for extension of pipe system, pipe, gates, new 
hydrants, setting hydrants, etc. 80,000 


Pipe Yard and Repair Shop. 

Salaries and wages.:. $16,500 

Expense, materials, tools, etc. 20,000 


Stable. 

Salaries and wages, including teamsters. $9,000 

Feed and expense. 4,000 


City Pumping Stations. 

Salaries and wages. $19,200 

Expense ... 5,000 

Fuel, oil at 80 cents per bbl. 29,200 


Storage Reservoirs, Canals and Pipe Lines. 

Salaries of keepers, canal men and pipe walkers. $21,400 

Maintenance, repairs, etc. 60,000 

Bear Gulch and Dry Creek Poiver Stations. 

Salaries and wages. 25 000 

Expense . 5^000 


$94,500 

$35,700 

$217,600 

$36,500 

$13,000 

$53,400 

$81,400 


$30,000 










































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


77 


Altamont and Belmont Pumping Stations. 

Salaries and wages. $14,100 

Expenses, fuel, etc. 9,000 $23,100 

Total . $585,200 

This sum includes betterments, such as extension of the city distributing, 
for which money should be taken out of the annual receipts from the rate¬ 
payers. It does not include the making of service connections, which, it is 
assumed, would be made at the expense of the householders. The cost of 
making these connections would, therefore, be offset by a revenue item of 
equal amount. 

In determining the cost of water delivered to the consumer, there should 
be added to the above expenditures an allowance for renewal of the works 
necessary by reason of the fact that a portion of the water works plant will 
be of a perishable character. It is to be anticipated that, as a result of depre¬ 
ciation, the cast-iron pipes of the distributing system will have to be replaced 
in about 100 years, the wrought-iron pipe in about 40 years, the pumping 
machinery and bridges in about 30 years, electrical and water-power machin¬ 
ery, boilers and piping, etc., in about 20 years, poles for electric transmission 
in about 10 years, and that buildings of wood and other miscellaneous struc¬ 
tures, whose renewal is not covered by the annual maintenance allowance, will 
serve 40 years. 

These considerations and the foregoing cost estimate lead to the con¬ 
clusion that for the system outside of the city, renewal funds must be pro¬ 


vided approximately as follows: 

At the end of 10 years. $45,000 

At the end of 20 years. 560,000 

At the end of 30 years. 1,930,000 

At the end of 40 years. 18,700,000 

And for the city distributing system: 

At the end of 20 years.*. $60,000 

At the end of 30 years. 260,000 

At the end of 40 years. 1,700,000 

At the end of 100 years. 5,000,000 


It is to be assumed, however, that the cost of replacing worn out portions 
of the works can be fully met by the issuance of 3]/ 2 per cent bonds at the 
times and in the amounts indicated by these figures. 

In determining therefore the cost of the water, including interest on the 
outstanding bonds, these additional issues are to be taken into account. 

It may be stated that, in the form of annuities at 3 % per cent per year, 
these expenditures for repairs represents $282,000 per year for that portion 
of the water works system which serves to collect and deliver the water to the 
city and $78,400 for the city distributing system. 

The cost of operation would increase but slowly with the increasing con¬ 
sumption of water in the city until the capacity of the main supply pipes is 
reached, and an outlay for additions to the works is required. There would be 
a small increase in cost of service at the emergency works, also in the fuel 
account at the city pumping stations, to be added to the increase in the de¬ 
partments having in charge water distribution and rate collections, which lat¬ 
ter bear a more direct relation to total consumption. 

If the works were completed in 1908 under a bond issue of $1,000,000 in 














78 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


1903, $4,000,000 in 1904, $10,000,000 in 1905, $15,000,000 in 1906 and $10,000,000 
in 1907, of which one-fortieth is to be paid each year, they would come into 
service with a bonded indebtedness of 38,225,000 and of this amount $1,000,000 
would be cancelled each year. The works would come into service with a 
delivery of about 11,830 million gallons of water per year. 

Some idea of the cost of the water delivered, not including sinking funds, 
can be obtained from the following table: 


Year 

Estimated 
Total Annual 
Consumption 
Million Gals. 

Estimated 
Cost of Oper¬ 
ation and 
Maintenance 
Per Year 

Interest on 
Outstanding 
Bonds—$40.- 
000,000 issued 
in 1903-07 

Interest on 
Bonds Issued 
for Renewal 
of Works 

Total Cost 
of Water 
Per Year 

Cost of Water 
PerThousand 
Gallons De¬ 
livered to 
Consumers 

1908 

11.830 

$598,000 

$1,337,875 


$1,935,875 

$0,164 

1913 

12.726 

617.000 

1.162.875 


1.779.875 

0.140 

1918 

13.8^6 

635.000 

987.875 

$ 1.575 

1,624.4.50 

0.116 

1923 

14.990 

654.000 

812,875 

1.575 

1.468.450 

0.098 

1928 

16.130 

672,000 

637.875 

23.275 

1.333.1.50 

0.082 

1933 

17.267 

691.000 

462.875 

23.275 

1.177.1.50 

0.068 

1938 

18.424 

710.000 

287.875 

99.925 

1.097.800 

0.059 

1943 

19.617 

730.000 

112.875 

99.925 

942.800 

0.047 

1948 

20.916 

753.000 


813.925 

1.566.925 

0.075 


For the purpose of the above exhibit, it has been assumed that the $40,- 
000,000 in bonds issued for the construction of the water works would bear 
interest at the rate of V/ 2 per cent per annum. 

The bonds would be paid in forty annual installments as required by law. 
Both the interest on the bonds and the necessary sinking fund would be 
raised by direct taxation, not by contribution of rate payers. The above ex¬ 
hibit does not, therefore, represent the charge that is to be made to the con¬ 
sumer, but merely the increments of cost due to expenses of operation and 
maintenance, and interest on all outstanding bonds which are assumed to 
cover original construction as well as deterioration. 

During the first ten years after the works come into service $1,000,000 will 
annually be required in addition to retire bonds. This amount will then in¬ 
crease somewhat as bonds are issued to meet the expense of replacement of 
perishable parts of the works. 

It is to be noted that these works planned for a capacity of 60,000,000 gal¬ 
lons can not deliver water at the reduced rate of 30,000,000 gallons per day as 
cheaply as though projected for this lesser capacity. In this latter case only 
a single instead of a double pipe line would be required, other parts of the 
works would be similarly reduced and expense of operation and maintenance 
would be somewhat less. 

No attempt will be made at this time to fully illustrate this point. 

About 1950 it would be necessary to increase the capacity of the supply 
pipes and to enlarge the power stations and pumping plants. The unit price 
of water would then increase again above the prices noted in the table. 

No loss of interest during construction has been taken into account in the 
above exhibits, because it need not be covered by the bond issue. The interest 
paid out during construction would not be a charge against the construction 
account, but would be raised from year to year by taxation. 





















79 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 
GENERAL REMARKS. 

A brief statement of how much a water works system would appear in 
actual operation may not be out of place. 

During the winter and spring months, except occasionally for a few days, 
when the water at the intake dam in Tuolumne River is too turbid, water 
would be taken from the river direct without any supplemental supply from 
the storage reservoir in Hetch-Hetchy Valley. During the period of high 
water stages, which ordinarily extends well into July, the storage in Hetch- 
Hetchy reservoir would be replenished. As soon as the river falls to such a 
stage that its ordinary flow must be supplemented to meet the cojnbined re¬ 
quirements of San Francisco and of appropriators taking water below the 
San Francisco intake, especially to meet the requirements of Modesto and 
Turlock irrigation districts, water would be liberated from the storage 
reservoir in suitable quantity, gradually increasing as the streams fall, up to 
the full supply required for San Francisco, added to the natural inflow into 
Hetch-Hetchy Valley. The natural flow would pass down the river to other 
users. The amount drawn from the stored supply would be conducted by 
canal and pipes to San Francisco. 

As heretofore explained, it would in its descent of 766 feet at Bear Gulch, 
and 333 feet at Dry Creek, be used in the generation of power transmitted 
by electricity to the Altamont pumping station, where it would be raised 585 
feet over Livermore Pass at Altamont and delivered into Altamont reservoir. 

This reservoir, with its capacity of upward of 200,000,000 gallons of 
water, would be the important regulator on the main supply system. During 
a cessation of flow in the canal from any cause, during any interruption of 
service at the power stations, this reservoir will keep up the delivery to San 
Francisco for a number of days, the actual length of time depending upon the 
rate of water consumption in San Francisco and the amount of water stored in 
the city receiving and service reservoir system. 

As soon as it becomes apparent that any interruption of service will con¬ 
tinue longer than the supply from the Altamont reservoir would hold out, the 
engineers and assistants are to be transferred in part from Altamont pumping 
station to the auxiliary pumping station at Belmont, and the city would be 
temporarily supplied with water from the Belmont reservoir which is to be 
kept full for such emergency. 

The service from Belmont would only continue during the continuance of 
the emergency, and thereafter the reservoir at Belmont would be refilled from 
the main pipes. 

The water delivered in San Francisco will, after flowing through Ocean 
avenue tunnel, pass through a concrete structure which will be arranged to 
direct its flow into either or both of the proposed receiving reservoirs. In this 
structure, measuring weirs are to be arranged and the water will be dropped 
about eight feet. Leaving this structure, it will flow in two 36-inch pipes into 
receiving reservoir No. 1 on the House of Refuge lot, and through two 48-inch 
pipes to the Amazon street receiving reservoir No. 2. 

The controlling gates are to be located at the easterly termination of 
Ocean avenue tunnel on the House of Refuge lot. 

At some convenient point on the mains leading into San Francisco, meters 
are to be placed for measuring the water delivery. 

The system is planned for a delivery of 60,000,000 gallons of water. The 


80 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 

V 

city needs at present only 30,000,000 gallons. The system will therefore come 
into use at about one-half of its capacity. 

Surplus waters will be restrained in the mountain reservoir or will be 
liberated from the canal and regulating reservoirs. 

The tunnel and canal capacities have all been projected on the basis of 
the future needs of the city and bear some relation to the prospective produc¬ 
tiveness of the source of supply. 

By lining the canals with concrete, and by placing the tunnels so low 
that practically their full sectional area can be utilized as a water-way, the 
upper section of these water works can in the future be expanded to a capa¬ 
city of about 250 second feet or about 160,000,000 gallons per day. The pipe 
capacity can be increased, when required, by adding more pipes. 

The power development included in this project has been restricted to that 
required for lifting the water over Livermore Pass. To develop additional 
power and bring the same into San Francisco for use, would become practically 
an independent project. 

There can be more water delivered through the canal system above the 
power station than required in San Francisco for many years, and by in¬ 
stallation of pressure pipes, water power and electrical machinery, the energy 
represented in the descent of this surplus water can be converted into elec¬ 
tricity and sent to San Francisco. 

There would be required for such delivery an independent pole line and 
transmission wires. The cost of installation would, owing to the length cf 
the line, 150 miles, and consequent loss of power in transit, be relati/ely 
large; and when interest on investment, an allowance for deterioration and 
operating expenses are all taken into account, this scheme of saving a few 
dollars on the fuel account for power required in operating the city pumps 
and for other municipal purposes, does not appear attractive, and has 
appeared to be an unnecessary addition to the water works system. 

This project is submitted in compliance with directions of the Board of 
Public Works as authorized by the Board of Supervisors under charter re¬ 
quirement. It is not to be inferred, however, that the City Engineer desires to 
recommend, in submitting this report and a cost estimate, the original con¬ 
struction of an entirely independent water works system as here outlined. 

It must be manifest that such procedure would render valueless certain 
properties of the Spring Valley Water Works now used in the supply of water 
to this city. As some of these properties can be incorporated in the proposed 
system to advantage, no other conclusion can be reached than that the in¬ 
terests of the city and of the Spring Valley Water Works are mutual—to have 
the established works in part, at least, retained in service, and to have the 
new works supplement that part of the Spring Valley Water Works system 
which can be retained in use. This fact should not be lost sight of in nego¬ 
tiating for the established works as required by law. 

Enough has been said to show that there is no more available source of 
supply of first quality water with which to supplement the supply of the 
Spring Valley Water Works than that herein reported upon. Treated from 
the standpoint of a supplemental supply, however, it should be remembered 
that the delivery of surplus water would then be into Crystal Springs reservoir 
instead of into a new reservoir at Belmont, and that a single pipe line with a 
capacity of 30,000,000 gallons per day would fully meet all immediate require¬ 
ments. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


81 


Of the Spring Valley Water Works’ properties, the most notable works 
that would not be required in a combination system would be the Sunol Valley 
and Alameda pipe system, including the pumping works at Belmont. 

It may be of service to indicate at this time what portion of the proposed 
system would be essential as an addition to the established water works. 
This is done, however, without any attempt to present the combination project 
in more than general outline. 

The storage reservoir on Tuolumne River would be required and would be 
carried out as suggested for the Tuolumne River project. The water liberated 
from the reservoir would be sent down the river channel and canal—siphon 
and tunnel system substantially as hereinabove indicated. 

At Bear Gulch power station the installation would remain the same as 
projected, while at Dry Creek no installation of power would at this time be 
required. 

There would be but a single 48-inch pipe line across San Joaquin Valley 
and from Altamont to San Francisco. The force main from the Altamont 
pumps to the Altamont reservoir would also be a single 48-inch pipe, and the 
pump capacity at Altamont would be reduced one-half. No steam relay would 
there be necessary. 

The structures on the pipe lines would remain substantially the same as 
required for works of full capacity. 

The auxiliary reservoir and pumping station at Belmont would be un¬ 
necessary. 

It would be desirable to bring the main pipe into San Francisco as in¬ 
dicated for the Tuolumne project, and to deliver water into a receiving reser¬ 
voir at the House of Refuge lot. The other receiving reservoir would be un¬ 
necessary. 

It follows from this that the works outside the city could be re¬ 
duced in cost to about. . .$18,200,000 

Compared with the estimate for the independent project for 60,- 

000,000 gallons per day. a.. 30,724,000 

Making a reduction of about.. 12,524,000 

Of the Spring Valley Water Works, it would not be necessary to acquire 
any part of the Sunol Valley system nor the pipes across the bay, nor the 
Belmont pumps with the discharge pipe to Burlingame—unless, possibly, the 
new 54-inch pipe (now about to be placed between Belmont and Burlingame), 
be made a part of the Tuolumne main. 

The Portola (Searsville) reservoir properties, and the rights held by the 
Spring Valley Water Works on Pescadero and other Ocean slope creeks, 
would be of no special value to the combination system. 

On the other hand, all of the works connected with Pilarcitos reservoir, 
San Andreas reservoir, and Crystal Springs reservoir would be valuable mem¬ 
bers of the combination water supply system, as would also Lake Merced as an 
emergency supply, and the several pumping stations at the reservoirs, on the 
pipe lines from the reservoirs and within the city. 

The city distributing system would come into use without modification, ex¬ 
cept the placing of larger mains in some sections of the city to insure the 
best possible fire protection, and the construction of a number of new reser¬ 
voirs and tanks and an improvement of the pumping facilities. It is thought 
that an expenditure of $1,000,000 in betterments of this kind would be at once 
justified if the Spring Valley Water Works’ supply were augmented by a sup- 





82 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


ply from the Sierra Nevadas, and that about $500,000 would cover the cost of 
the receiving reservoir at the House of Refuge lot, and its service mains. 

The appraisements made from time to time of the value of the Spring 
Valley Water Works’ properties, as a basis for fixing water rates, may serve 
as a preliminary guide in determining the financial aspect of such a combina¬ 
tion system. 

Should it be carried out, then the conditions under which the nearby 
sources serve can be materially improved. The Crystal Springs reservoir and 
Lake Merced can be filled with Sierra Nevada water and can be kept full. 
The former will be drawn upon only to the extent of the annual yield or even 
less, so that less variation in quality of water than at present is to be antici¬ 
pated. 

It should be stated that, after betterments to the extent of $1,000,000 have 
been made on the distributing system as now in service, further additions and 
repairs would be made out of the annual allowance for maintenance, replace¬ 
ment and extensions. 

The progress report submitted under date of August 12, 1901, contains 
references to the other available sources of water supply. It is to be con¬ 
sidered a part of this report, the cost estimates therein contained being modi¬ 
fied to the extent made necessary by the estimated cost of the distributing sys¬ 
tem as set forth in the preceding pages. Respectfully, 

(Signed) C. E. GRUNSKY, 

City Engineer. 

Office of Board of Public Works, 

San Francisco, September 21, 1908. 

To the Honorable The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of 
San Francisco. 

Gentlemen: There is herewith transmitted plans and estimates for 

the original construction of works for a water supply for the City and 
County of San Francisco, of date September 14, 1908, prepared by the 
City Engineer under authority and in compliance with Ordinance No. 492 
(New Series), approved June 23, 1908. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. 

By ROBT. J. LOUGIIERY, Secretary. 

Enclosure. 

Office of Board of Public W T orks. 

San Francisco, September 14, 1908. 

To the Honorable, The Board of Public Works, of the City and County of 
San Francisco. 

Gentlemen: Under authority of and in compliance with Ordinance 
No. 492 (N. S.), approved June 23d, 1908, I submit herewith plans and 
estimates for the original construction of works for a water supply for 
the City and County of San Francisco, the designated available sources 
being Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy reservoirs and the waters of Tuo¬ 
lumne River, Tuolumne County, California. 

It will be noted— 

(1) That these sources were filed upon on October 15th, 1901, and 
these filings continuously prosecuted to the granting of reservoir rights of 
way by the Hon. James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior at 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


83 


Washington, on May 11th, 1908. The securing of these rights are conditioned 
upon the expression of their acceptance by popular vote; and upon the 
exchange of lands, upon which options are held in the interest of the city, 
for the public lands in the reservoir areas. 

Since the date above named, work has been continued in securing 
lands, surveys of the same and in necessary office studies, etc. 

(2) Also that in the year following the filings above named, very 
carefully prepared plans and estimates for the development of these sources 
were made. These plans and estimates showed the cost of utilizing these 
sources either as an independent or as a re-enforcing supply. For supposed 
reasons of economy, the plans and estimates made in 1900-2 were not fully 
published and widely distributed at the time as they should have been. 
Hence the public has been misled through ignorance or design into the 
idea that no complete study of the problem of water supply was made. The 
facts are that several years time of the Engineers then on the Board of 
Public Works, of City Engineer Grunsky re-enforced by the advantage 
of the advice and counsel of Consulting Engineer Desmond Fitzgerald were 
devoted to the problem. Field and office parties were kept for nearly a 
year at work at a cost of $40,000, and a very complete set of plans and 
estimates were made. The results of this work, through a misguided spirit 
of economy, have not been properly laid before the public. Hence it has 
been difficult to meet statements ignorantly or purposely put forth against 
the propositions then recommended. 

For these portions of the works which lie beyond the city limits, no 
material changes in these plans and estimates are necessary to fit them to 
present conditions; iron and cement, the two materials of largest cost, 
have cheapened somewhat; while labor, the other large factor, has increased, 
the changes about offsetting one another in the ultimate cost of the works. 
Under the conditions imposed by the Government, in making the grant 
of reservoir rights of way, Lake Eleanor reservoir must be first developed. 
This condition necessitates the only change in the estimates of those 
portions of the works which lie beyond the city limits. No other change 
is necessary, for the head works in the canyon of Tuolumne River are 
common to both reservoirs and are reached by gravity along the gorges 
in which their waters naturally flow. 

As will be noted in detail later on, four very important factors affecting 
the cost of the City Distribution system have entered the problem since 
1902. These are: 

(1) The construction of 92 miles of high pressure fire protection mains 
will materially decrease the size and cost of mains for domestic and indus¬ 
trial supply in the districts covered by the auxiliary fire protection system 
now under way; 

(2) Developments since April, 1906, have made it necessary to extend 
the distribution system over much larger areas than in 1902, some of which 
areas are inadequately supplied, and the development of others being 
restricted by lack of a supply. 

(3) It is also essential to provide more numerous and larger service 
reservoirs than was then considered necessary. 

(4) There has been a marked demand for extensions to and an in¬ 
creased consumption of water in the high level districts. 


84 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


These conditions and the changes in the plans and estimates which 
they necessitate will be considered later. 

SOURCES. 

It becomes necessary at this point to recall and express an opinion 
upon the general questions of the sources and their availability, the grants 
thereto and the alleged probability of the contamination of the water 
originating thereon and to be conducted to this city. 

Tuolumne River above La Grange dam, at the edge of the foothills, 
drains about 1,501 square miles of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains. See map accompanying this report entitled: 

MAP OF THE REGION BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND THE SUM¬ 
MIT OF THE SIERRAS SHOWING THE FACTORS OF THE 
TUOLUMNE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY, JULY 24, 1908. 

This drainage area lies nearly due east of San Francisco; a due east and 
west line from this city passes through the drainage basin of Merced 
River and through the southeasterly part of that of Tuolumne River, leaving 
the main portion thereof north of this line. 

This drainage basin of Tuolumne River is naturally divided into six 
sub-basins, two of which reach the summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains; 
namely, the main Tuolumne drainage basin and Cherry Creek; Eleanor 
Creek, a tributary of the latter, reaches to within a few miles of the summit. 

The other sub-basins drain regions which lie on the lower slopes of 
the mountains and do not reach the summit and enter the main stream 
some twenty miles below Hetch Hetchy Y T alley and below the diverting 
dam hereinafter mentioned. 


RESERVOIRS. 

Quite a large number of glacial lakes and valleys lie in the drainage 
basin of Tuolumne River; nearly all of which are suitable for the storage 
of waste flood waters. The largest of these, Hetch Hetchy Valley, lies 
N. 8514° E. and about 140 miles from San Francisco, on the main fork of 
the river, and has about 452 square miles of mountain slopes tributary 
thereto. The elevation of this tributary area, except the valley itself and 
the bottoms of the converging gorges, which are about 3,700 feet above 
tide, is between one and two and a half miles above sea level, and its 
summit line, or eastern border, fronts for fifty-three miles along the crest 
of the Sierras from Mt. Lyell northward. This crest has a mean elevation 
of about 11,500 feel;, or over two miles above sea level. 

At the lower end of Hetch Hetchy Valley is a granite gorge having 
a mean width at the surface of the low water of about 65 feet, the sides of 
which rise precipitously for 800 or more feet. The valley is about five and 
one-half miles long and over one-half mile in width; its walls are so steep 
as to be practically impassable except at three points occupied by steep, 
rough trails. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


85 


This reservoir will hold about the following volumes at successive 
heights: 

Height. 

100 feet .16,213 million gallons 

150 feet .33,071 million gallons 

200 feet .48,600 million gallons 

250 feet .66,000 million gallons 

LAKE ELEANOR. 

Lake Eleanor is situated near the lower end of the creek of the same 
name and is some four miles northwest of Hetcli Hetchy. The tributary 
drainage area is about S4 square miles, rising from the lake surface at 
4,700 feet to over two miles above sea level. 

Two adjacent drainage basins can be made partially tributary to this 
reservoir, namely Cherry Creek, with 103 square miles, and Falls Creek, 
with 37.5 square miles of similar territory. 

The lake is about 400 acres in area and is fed by Kibby, Eleanor and 
Frog Creeks. The lower end of the lake is bordered by a gravelly flat 
resting on granite bedrock, which, about a mile and a quarter below the 
lake, closes into a granite walled gorge and offers an excellent site and 
material for a dam. This dam can be economically raised to a height of 
200 feet. 

At successive heights it will impound the following volumes of water: 


Height. 

130 feet . 6,282 million gallons 

150 feet . 13,106 million gallons 

175 feet .25,000 million gallons 

200 feet .39,000 million gallons 


The two reservoirs when developed to the limits above indicated will 
furnish over 290,000,000 gallons per day for 365 days; and, considering the 
fact that the storage waters will be drawn upon for only about 210 days 
each year, this supply will furnish nearly 500,000,000 gallons per day. 
Combined with a moderate development of existing nearby supplies, these 
sources will meet any demand which can now be reasonably foreseen or 
predicted. 

RUN-OFF AND THE PURITY AND SANITARY CONDITIONS OF 

THE TRIBUTARY AREAS. 

The areas tributary to these reservoirs are subjected to such severe 
winter conditions that they are uninhabitable; they are moreover within 
the boundaries of the Yoseinite National Park; so that at no time in the 
future can conditions arise tending to impair the purity of water flowing 
therefrom, which cannot be rigidly controlled. 

The run-off from these areas has never been continuously gauged for 
a season. But from a comparison of the gauging at La Grange dam by 
the U. S. Reclamation Service and studies since 1903, it is manifest that 
the run-off from the tributary are sufficient to more than fill Hetch Hetchy 
reservoir with a dam at its maximum height during the dryest season which 










86 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


has occurred since accurate gaugings at La Grange were established; and, 
that by diverting a portion of the run-off from Cherry Creek, Lake 
Eleanor reservoir would have been similarly filled. The estimates of run¬ 
off by Mr. Grunsky in 1901-3, in the light of more recent data and studies, 
are certainly ultra-conservative both as to precipitation and run-off. (See 
pp. 222-223, Reports of Board of Public Works, 1901-2 and 1902-3.) 

Considering, therefore, that the run-off is ample to fill the reservoirs 
during dry years, and that once put in use some water will naturally be 
held over, discussions of the details of actual precipitation and run-off 
must await the result of future observations and measurements. 

It will, therefore, be observed that the run-off from the available areas 
is more than sufficient to fill the reservoirs during the dryest year of which 
there is any definite record, but that it is desirable to more accurately 
gauge the rate of run-off and the precipitation. 

During about five months each year, between December and July, the 
discharge of Tuolumne River is more than sufficient to meet all industrial 
uses; it will consequently not be necessary to draw on the stored waters 
except when the natural discharge of the river falls below these demands, 
when the stored water will be liberated from the reservoirs in such quan¬ 
tities as may be necessary. 

GENERAL ROUTE OF CONDUITS TO SAN FRANCISCO. 

The liberated water of Lake Eleanor or of Hetch Hetchy reservoir will 
flow along natural channels or gorges to a point about two miles below the 
junction of the streams; at this site it is proposed to build a diverting 
dam, situated about 128 miles nearly due east from San Francisco. This 
dam will turn and control the flow through gates into a canal cut into 
the south side of the canyon, tunneled through its spurs and carried across 
its side gorges; drainage from the canyon walls above the canal will be 
intercepted by ditches and conducted under or over this canal. The length 
of this canal will be about twenty-nine miles and its capacity 250 second 
feet. It has been intimated that its flow will be subject to contamination, 
but there is less danger of pollution in this canal than in the natural gorges 
in which the water now flows without becoming in any way contaminated, 
as this canal can be protected in case necessity shall arise, as is usually 
done elsewhere and in the existing water works now supplying the city, 
and as is recommended for Los Angeles by L. P. Stearns and Jas. D. 
Schuyler, Consulting Engineers. It is, however, possible that at some 
remote time in the future the waters of Cherry Creek, being collected 
beyond the limits of the Yosemite National Park, may become undesirable. 
In which event, Lake Eleanor waters can be diverted on the left bank 
of Eleanor Creek, carried in a separate canal along the canyon wall and 
delivered without joining Cherry Creek drainage, into Tuolumne River 
at a point above the mouth of Cherry Creek. In this event the diverting 
dam can be placed just above the junction of Cherry Creek with Tuolumne 
River, and Eleanor Creek waters used for power as they fall into the 
head gates of the diverting canal. 

At the lower end of the diverting canal there is to be constructed a 
power station, designated Bear Gulch Power Station. At this station a 
fall of 766 feet is available; power to the extent of 12,000-horsepower can 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


87 


here be generated. The water from the wheels of this power station will 
immediately pass into the headworks of another conduit consisting of pipes, 
tunnels and canals having an aggregate length of 14.56 miles to a second 
power station on Dry Creek, distant 102 miles due east of San Francisco. 
At this station 330 feet of fall is available and 4,500-horsepower may be 
generated. 

The water discharged from this power station is at an elevation of 
about 580 feet above tide and will here be delivered into tailraee-controlling 
reservoirs; thence into two 48-inch wrought iron mains which will cross 
San Joaquin Valley and deliver this water into Altamont pumping station. 
These pipes are 60.5 miles long and are to deliver 60,000,000 gallons per 
twenty-four hours. 


ALTAMONT PUMPING STATION. 

This station is to be equipped with receiving reservoir, electrically 
driven pumps operated by power transmitted from Bear Gulch and Dry 
Creek power stations, auxiliary steam plant for emergency use, and delivery 
pipes into a pressure reservoir about three-quarters of a mile west of Alta¬ 
mont and at an elevation of 752 feet above sea level. This station and 
equipment is planned in masonry, steel and iron and will be kept in con¬ 
tinual use. 

From the Altamont reservoir the water is to flow by gravity through 
two wrought iron pipes 48 inches in diameter and passing around the head 
of the bay near Alviso to service reservoirs on either side of Mission 
Road near Amazon Street, a distance of 70.1 miles. On this line a saving 
of some five and one-half miles may be made by crossing at Dumbarton 
Point. This will also reduce the distance on which the pipes lie on marsh 
lands, which experience demonstrates should be avoided as far as possible. 

It is observed that under the conditions above named no contamination 
of the waters from this source can occur if the ordinary and reasonable 
precautions be taken, whenever occasion therefor shall arise. Under exist¬ 
ing conditions ordinary fences will be ample. 

(1) The waters are collected from uninhabitable areas within the limits 
of Yosemite National Park and adjacent forest reserve; the surface of 
which is composed of rocks and soils of least solubility. The water is 
therefore initially pure and soft. These areas are inaccessible for the 
greater portion of the year and are entirely within the Yosemite National 
Park and are not visited by the great body of campers and tourists which 
visit Yosemite Valley and the Big Tree groves. These great attractions lie 
in other drainage basins and attract by far the greater portion of the 
travel. 

(2) These waters are to be stored in granite-bound reservoirs of 
unsurpassed conditions of isolation and natural cleanliness. 

(3) They flow either along almost inaccessible mountain gorges or 
along and through canals and conduits easily guarded and protected by 
known means always resorted to whenever necessary. It is also manifest, 
therefore, that at no time in the future can the sources of water supply 
herein considered become contaminated nor pass beyond that reasonable 
control which will preserve their purity from the snow fields of the Sierra 
to the faucets of the home. 


88 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


RESUME OP WORKS OUTSIDE THE CITY. 

Works outside the city limits are therefore: 

(1) Storage reservoirs at Lake Eleanor and Hetcli Hetchy Valley. 
(The first of these sites being now estimated upon as per agreement with 
the Hon. The Secretary of the Interior.) Gauging weirs above and below 
reservoir. Quarters for employees, etc. 

(2) Diverting dam and canal 29 miles long to Bear Gulch power 
station with equipment of gates, etc., and quarters for employees. 

(3) Bear Gulch power station with forebay reservoir pressure pipes, 
generators, tailrace reservoir, mechanical equipment complete for gener¬ 
ating 12,000-horsepower, quarters for employees, etc. 

(4) Conduits from Bear Gulch power station to Dry Creek power 
station 14.56 miles long, complete, with canal pipes, tunnels, gates, quar¬ 
ters for employees, etc. 

(5) Dry Creek power station with forebay reservoir, pressure pipes, 
generators, tailrace, reservoir, mechanical equipment complete for gener¬ 
ating 4,500-horsepower, quarters, etc. 

(6) Pole line and copper conductors for power and telephone lines, 
145 miles. 

(7) Double 48-inch wrought irou pipes 60.5 miles long across San 
Joaquin Valley, accessories, quarters for employees, etc. 

(8) Altamont pumping station complete, reservoir, electric and steam- 
driven pumping plants, housing for plant, stores, mechanical equipment, 
fuel, etc., quarters for employees, pressure pipes, etc. 

(9) Equalizing pressure reservoir at Altamont and double 48-inch 
wrought iron pipes, tunnels, etc., to service reservoirs in San Francisco, 
capacity 60,000,000 gallons daily. 

For the reason before given, it is not considered necessary at this time 
for the purposes of this report to make any material changes in the plans 
and estimates for those portions of the works which lie outside the limits 
of the city and which were worked out in 1901-2 by City Engineer Grunsky; 
and the descriptions of which were in part published in the Reports of 
the Board of Public Works for 1901-2 and 1902-3, page 248. 

From this report the following recommendation of the Board of Public 
Works is quoted and renewed: 

“In 1900, at the beginning of the studies directed by the Charter as 
to the acquisition of public necessities and utilities, the water supply very 
properly occupied the first place, and received the most attention and study. 
The results of these studies have not yet been laid before the citizens in 
full published form, so that they are in a large measure ignorant of the 
very carefully worked out plans for meeting this most pressing necessity 
of the city. This vital matter has in some way been allowed to fall in 
the rear, and does not appear at all in the list of projects to be submitted 
to the voters. Water supply so far outranks all other matters, both in 
importance and cost, that they could well be allowed to rest until the 
water question has been settled. ’ ’ 

On this work a large portion of two years was spent, costing about 
$40,000 and employing eight Assistant Engineers and Draughtsmen, with 
the necessary complement of field assistants. Of this work the report of 
the Board of Public Works says: 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


89 


The volume of work done by the Bureau of Engineering was large 
and important. The most important was the completion of the report upon 
a Municipal Water Supply, submitted in August, 1902, giving in full plans 
and estimates of cost of supplying the city abundant and pure water, from 
a source impossible of contamination. The cost of these works, if con¬ 
structed as an independent system, is estimated at $40,000,000, but if 
developed only to reinforce existing supplies, will cost about $18,000,000.00. ’ 1 

Submitted with this report were 36 sheets of drawings giving in detail 
a succinct outline of the Tuolumne project, the source, reservoirs, align¬ 
ments and nature of conduits and works, and a careful and accurate estimate 
of the cost of the entire project, developed either as an independent source 
of supply or as an auxiliary supply to the present source. It is ,to be 
regretted that these plans and the accompanying report have never been 
published in full, as they would then afford the public a far clearer knowl¬ 
edge of what has been done at its expense and for its benefit than most 
of the citizens have any idea. 

(For additional data and details of the above described works see pp. 
200-237, Reports of the Board of Public Works, 1901-2, 1902-3, and the 
unpublished plans therein referred to, reproduced copies of which are on 
file in the office of the City Engineer.) 


ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF THE WORKS OUTSIDE THE CITY 

LIMITS NECESSARY TO DELIVER 60,000,000 GALLONS DAILY 

TO THE SERVICE RESERVOIRS WITHIN THE CITY. 

Lake Eleanor Reservoir- 
Concrete and masonry dam 150 feet high, 141,- 

000 C. Y. @ $12.$1,692,000.00 

Measuring Weirs, cleaning site, outlet, tunnels, 

gates, pipes, etc. 120,000.00 

Quarters for keeper, etc. 3,000.00 $1,815,000.00 


Canal Head Works— 

Diverting dam, Tuolumne River, about 1 mile 

below Jawbone Creek. $73,200.00 

Headgates, sluice gates, etc., side-lined tunnel 

500 feet long . 30,200.00 

Canal 2000 feet long, sump, spillway, sluice and 

controlling gates, drain ditching, etc. 33,700.00 

Keeper’s house, stable, etc. 2,000.00 


$139,100.00 


$139,100.00 











90 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Canal from headworks to Bear Gulch; 20.27 
miles canal bottom width 9 feet, water 
depth 5 feet, capacity 150 sec. ft. at $35,000 


per mile . $721,600.00 

36,210 ft. side-lined tunnel, 7.5 ft. wide, 9 ft. 

high, at $25. 955,300.00 

3,650 ft. inverted siphon, 2-48 inch pipes, 
weight 1,278,000 lbs., bridges over South 

Fork and Deer Creek . 136,700.00 

Drain ditching, cross fluming, etc. 14,400.00 

3 ditch tender cabins. 1,500.00 


Canal from Bear Gulch to Dry Creek— 

7.56 miles canal at $30,000. $226,800.00 

2,165 feet side-lined tunnel at $25. 54,100.00 

15,220 feet lined tunnel at $36. 547,900.00 

17,735 ft. of inverted siphon, 2-48 inch pipes, 
weight 5,601,600 lbs., and bridge supports 

for same. 560,000.00 

Drain ditching, cross fluming, etc., 2 regu¬ 
lating reservoirs, 150,000 cu. yds. earth, out¬ 
let structures, etc. 71,700.00 

2 ditch tenders’ cabins. 1,000.00 


$1,829,500.00 


Pipe Line from Dry Creek Power Station 
to Altamont Pumping Station— 

Intake reservoir at Dry Creek power station, 

2,150 cu. yds. concrete, outlet structures, 

drain ditching, etc. 32,500.00 

308,000 ft. of double 48-inch riveted iron pipe, 
weight 113,561,000 lbs., from Dry Creek 
power station to Altamont pumping sta¬ 
tion, including 964 manholes, 220 air valves, 

82 blow-off gates, 34,000 ft. 8-inch pipe, 


2-36-inch gates, 1,204 bands, etc. 7,324,900.00 

34,700 lin. ft. of trestle, bridge over Stanislaus 
River and special pipe supports over small 

water courses . 429,100.00 

San Joaquin River crossing, 3-36-inch submerged 

cast-iron pipes . 70,000.00 

5 pipe-walkers’ cabins. 2,500.00 


$1,461,500.00 


$7,859,000.00 





















SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


91 


Force Mains from Altamont Pumps to Al- 
tamont Reservoir— 

36,300 ft. double 48-inch riveted iron pipe, weight 
14,954,000 lbs., including 12 air valves, 6 
blow-off gates, 250 ft. 8-inch pipe, 100 man¬ 
holes, 124 bands, bridge over Mountain 
House Creek, 2,000 ft. double 24-inch by-pass 
at Altamont reservoir, 2 24-incli gates, etc. . $971,500.00 


Pipe Lines from Altamont Reservoir to 
San Francisco— 

361,000 ft. double 48-inch riveted irofi pipe, 
weight 144,149,000 lbs., including 1,104 man¬ 
holes, 340 air valves, 298 blow-off gates, 67,- 
000 ft. of 8-incli pipe, 1,266 bands, 8 36-inch 

gates, etc.$9,065,800.00 

3 lined tunnels, 800 ft. and 2,020 ft. long, @ $36 288,700.00 

Ocean avenue tunnel in San Francisco, 4,000 

ft. long @ $36. 144,000.00 

Bridges, trestles and culverts, including Arroyo 
Valle bridge 210 ft. long; Calaveras Creek 
bridge 420 ft. long; Coyote Creek, Guada- 
loupe River, and Campbell Creek bridges, 
each 70 ft. long; San Francisquito Creek 
bridge, 100 ft. long; San Mateo Creek 
bridge, 70 ft. long; besides 34,921 ft. of 
trestle and 57 culvert and short bridge 
structures, aggregating 1,450 ft. in length. . 435,600.00 


Pressure break near Mission San Jose. 20,000.00 

Gate house controlling gates in San Francisco 

at receiving reservoir No. 1. 12,500.00 

6 pipe-walkers’ houses. 3,000.00 


Bear Gulch Power Station— 

2 pressure pipes 1,950 ft. long, 48, 42, 36 and 


30-inch diameter, iron and steel. 60,000.00 

By-pass and intake reservoir power house at 

head of siphon across Bear Gulch. 53,000.00 

Power house and equipment, including 3 2,000 
kilowatt generators, excitors, transformers, 
switchboard, etc., also 33,000 horsepower 
waterwheels, regulators, etc., 2 dwellings, 
men’s quarters, stable, grading, etc. 260,000.00 


$971,500.00 


$9,969,600.00 


$373,000.00 













92 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Dry Creek Power Station— 

2 pressure pipes, 48-incli riveted, reduced to 42- 

inch 3,770 ft. long weight 1,156,600 lbs.... $95,000.00 

By-pass canal, waste-gates, etc. 12,000.00 

Power house and equipment, including 31,000 
kilowatt generators of electricity, excitors, 
transformers, switchboard, etc., also 31,500 
horsepower waterwheels, regulators, etc., 2 


dwellings, men’s quarters, stable, etc. 

$135,000.00 

$242,000.00 

Transmission Lines—• 

75 miles of pole line from Bear Gulch power 
station to Altamont pumping station, includ¬ 
ing raised crossing over San Joaquin River, 
75 miles of copper wires from Bear Gulch 
and 60 miles from Dry Creek to Altamont 
pumping station. 

$106,700.00 

$106,700.00 

Altamont Pumping Station— 

Station reservoir, earth embankment 140,,000 
cu. yds., inlet and outlet structures, waste¬ 
way, slush pipe, drain ditching, concrete 
forebay, gates, screens, etc. 

83,000.00 


Pump house, boiler house and equipment, includ¬ 
ing 6 pumps each of a capacity of 10,000,000 
gallons per day, rope-driven from electric 
motors, 3 to be also equipped with com¬ 
pound condensing steam engines, boilers, 
piping, etc., 2 residences, men’s quarters, 
stable, etc.$1,070,000.00 

$1,153,000.00 

Altamont Reservoir— 

Earth embankment 115,300 cu. yds., concrete 
outlet, structures, keeper’s house, road cor¬ 
rections, etc. 

$79,400.00 

$79,400.00 


Belmont Reservoir— 

Concrete dam 139,000 cu. yds., inflow pipes 
and inflow structures, outlet tunnel and out¬ 
let pipes, wasteway, etc.$1,434,000.00 













SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


93 


Belmont Pumping Station— 

Capacity 30,000,000 gallons per day, 3 com¬ 
pound condensing direct-acting steam pumps, 
each 10,000,000 gallons capacity; suction and 
discharge pipes, pumping house, boiler house, 
oil tank, coal bin, etc., 2 dwellings, keeper’s 

house, men’s quarters, stables, etc. $397,000.00 

Telephone System— 

About 125 miles with poles, about 75 miles on 

poles of transmission line. 20,000.00 1,851,000.00 


$27,850,300.00 

Add 10 per cent, for engineering and contin¬ 
gencies . 2,785,030.00 


$30,635,330.00 

Lands and litigation water rights and rights of 

way outside of San Francisco.$918,000.00 

Constructing new and improving existing roads 50,000.00 


Total for works, exclusive of the city dis¬ 
tributing system, and for a delivery of 

60,000,000 gallons daily. $31,603,330.00 

In case the Spring Valley properties shall be acquired, it will be pos¬ 
sible to make use of all of the existing sources except Lake Merced, 
which should be kept for use only in the remote event of some dire emer¬ 
gency. 

The necessity of introducing and safeguarding a large supply from 
the Tuolumne source, with double lines of pipes, etc., can then be avoided, 
for the reinforcement of the local supplies will then be assured from the 
Tuolumne source. 

Any deficiency from the peninsula supply due to a dry season will 
under these conditions be met with at least 20,000 million gallons on hand, 
which, with a daily consumption of 45,000,000 gallons, will last for over 
400 days, and before the end of that time restorations to any extent can 
be made and delivery and storage from the Tuolumne source restored. 

By thus using this source as a reinforcing supply a reduction of 
$11,059,550.00 is possible, which, increased by 10%, amounts to about 
$12,165,500. This saving is accomplished principally by limiting [pipe 
lines, siphons and pressure pipes to single instead of double lines, and by 
corresponding reductions in the mechanical equipment at Dry Creek power 
station, Altamont and Belmont pumping stations, and by the omission of 
Belmont reservoir. 

All canals, tunnels, forebay, tailrace and pressure reservoirs, and all 
other items in the previously named estimate of $31,603,330, remain the 
same and are designed for 60,000,000 gallons daily. This leaves the cost 
of introducing the Tuolumne source simply as a reinforcing supply at about 
19,437,800 and ensures a supply of at least 45,000,000 gallons per day, and 
will require expenditures to meet much needed extensions and betterments 
in the existing supply. 











94 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


This estimate accepts the contingency that interruptions in the Sierra 
supply of several months’ duration might possibly occur from one of several 
causes, in which event it will be noted that the peninsula reservoirs would 
under any circumstances and at any time of year have on storage from 
15,000 to 20,000 million gallons; at a consumption of 45,000,000 gallons per 
day nearly a year’s supply would be on hand for use during any interrup¬ 
tion of the supply from the Tuolumne source. 

To this must be added the cost of acquiring the Spring Valley source 
and of making certain increases in its supply and extensions and better¬ 
ments to its service and distributing system. 

PURCHASE AND INTRODUCTION OF AN AUXILIARY SUPPLY. 

The estimates above outlined anticipate our necessities and does not 
meet pressing and immediate requirements. Should the Spring Valley 
supply be acquired it will be necessary to increase the supply at once, 
and to add betterments and extensions before the Sierra source can be 
introduced. This statement emphasized the gravity of the situation. This 
can be made at an expenditure of not to exceed $1,500,000.00, and this 
office is prepared to present the steps for this work when required. There, 
however, remains the necessity of securing the reservoirs now available 
through the grant of May 11, 1908. 

The acquisition of these highly valuable rights are contingent upon 
the performance of certain stipulations which will cost in the next two 
years not to exceed $750,000, and in the succeeding eight (8) years not to 
exceed one-half this sum, upon which investment a reasonable interest 
may be derived. This expenditure will give this city an asset of incalcu¬ 
lable value in the shape of an incomparable source of water supply which 
can be developed to such extents and at such times as may become neces¬ 
sary. The ownership of these rights will add many fold their cost to 
the properties and industries of this city and stabilize the values of all 
classes of property. 

In a separate report of date July 23, 1908, this office has reported 
upon and recommended the steps necessary to accomplish this desirable 
result. Prompt action on this report is urgently recommended. 

ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF SERVICE RESERVOIRS WITHIN 
THE CITY LIMITS AND OF AN ENTIRELY NEW 
DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM. 

It remains to present plans and estimates of the cost of an entirely 
new system of service reservoirs and distributing mains for the city. These 
constitute the works inside the city limits; and which, for the following 
reasons, are essentially modified from the plans and estimates submitted 
in 1902-3: 

(1) The provision of an auxiliary high pressure water supply for 
fire protection which requires about 92 miles of large mains, two fire boats 
of the highest efficiency, and 100 additional fire cisterns, these materially 
reduce the size and cost of the mains for domestic and industrial water 
supply within the districts covered by this auxiliary supply. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


95 


(2) Developments and extensions of the built-up areas demand the 
extension of mains into districts not covered in the plans of 1902-3. 

(3) Experience has demonstrated that it is desirable to have larger 
and more numerous service reservoirs than were formerly designed, thus 
increasing the volume of water available within the city limits. 

(4) There has been an increase in the areas and demands for water 
in the higher levels which have not been met by the corporation now 
supplying the city, and which the city must meet if it takes up the work 
of municipal water supply. 

To make these changes the entire problem of service reservoirs and 
mains has been recast. 

These estimates for this distributing and service system are based 
upon a population of 735,000, a per capita daily consumption of 100 gallons 
and cover 15,450 acres. This is 5,770 acres, or 60% greater area than was 
considered necessary in 1902-3, in the estimate of City Engineer Grunsky. 
This increase in area is now considered necessary, as it embraces areas 
the development of which is retarded for lack of water and other areas 
the development of w'hich is estopped by an insufficiency. These addi¬ 
tions will enhance property values and gradually develop a corresponding 
increase in revenue. The aggregate service reservoir capacity is raised 
to 366,800,000 gallons, which is a five-days * supply for a poulation of 
735,000, at the above named rate of consumption. The service reservoirs 
are so connected that any level may be re-enforced as demand may be 
made. It will be observed that the storage in the city limits is four (4) 
times the capacity of the existing service reservoirs. 

The existing supply is admittedly just sufficient for the present popu¬ 
lation. The service is inadequate in some districts and entirely wanting 
in others. It, therefore, barely meets the demands of about 350,000 inhab¬ 
itants. The above estimate of cost covers a far larger area, and will serve 
abundantly and satisfactorily more than double the existing population 
and can be brought into service as demands shall arise. 

RECEIVING AND SERVICE RESERVOIRS. 

Water from the main supply will be received in two reservoirs, near 
the intersection of Mission and Amazon streets, having a combined capacity 
of 203,000,000 gallons, and estimated to cost $1,028,800. From there it 
will be supplied both by gravity and pumping station through 38 miles of 
main and force pipes to 21 service reservoirs in the five different levels 
into which the area to be supplied is divided. 

These service reservoirs hold from 1.1 to 3.68 days’ supply for the 
districts which they serve; and, combined with the water stored in the 
main service reservoirs, will hold about five days ’ supply for / 35,000 
inhabitants at a daily per capita consumption of 100 gallons, and are 
estimated to cost $1,585,200.00. The total cost of service reservoirs will 
thus be $2,614,000.00, which includes cost of real estate where reservoirs 
are not located on city property. 

PUMPING PLANT. 

To serve the levels above the reach of the main service reservoirs 


96 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


two pumping stations are required. These stations are estimated to have 
an aggregate daily capacity of 41,000,000 gallons, with a reserve capacity 
of 50 per cent. Complete they are estimated to cost $606,500.00. 

DISTRIBUTING MAINS AND LATERALS. 

To fully cover the 15,450 acres now estimated 
upon will call for 38 miles of main and force 
pipes and 605 miles of distribution pipes, or 

643 miles, estimated to cost.$7,292,880.00 

Gates, hydrants, meters, pipe yard, repair shop, 

etc., etc., will cost about. 551,000.00 

Bringing the pipe system and equipment to.... $7,843,880.00 


Cost of receiving reservoirs.$2,614,000.00 

Cost of pumping stations. 606,500.00 

Cost of distributing system and equipment.... 7,843,880.00 11,064,380.00 

Contingencies, engineering, etc., 10%. 1,106,438.00 

Total . $12,170,820.00 

Recapitulation of cost of an entire new system of service reservoirs, 
pumping stations and distributing pipe system having a capacity of serv¬ 
ing 15,450 acres and a population of 735,000 at a per capita daily con¬ 
sumption of 100 gallons. This system will more than double the capacity 
of the existing system and will have five times the volume of water stored 
within the city limits. 

Reviewing the various costs of the Tuolumne project, it is observed 
that to introduce this supply to the extent of 60,000,000 gallons daily; 
develop sufficient power to do all pumping necessary for this supply and 
have a considerable reserve for other municipal uses, construct an entirely 
new system of receiving and service reservoirs, pumping stations and 
distributing system, with a capacity to abundantly serve double our present 
population will cost as follows: 

Developing Tuolumne source, daily capacity 60,000,000 gallons. .$31,603,330 


Distributing system complete. 12,170,820 

Total .$43,774,150 


The rapid development of certain districts since the fire, the natural 
growth of other districts and the demand for covering districts not now 
supplied, or inadequately supplied, have all combined to call for an estimate 
for a distributing system larger than that estimated upon in 1902-3. 

Not being able to predicate the rate of increase or the exact loci of this 
increase, it has been considered best to make the distributing system somewhat 
greater capacity than the main supply. This latter can be raised when 
requirements demand. 















Prepared uuder the direction of 
Marsden Manson, City Eng 
June 19th, 1908 


Sheet No. 37 

PLAT SHOWING LANDS TO 8E PURCHASED SY 
SAN FRANCISCO FOR RESERVOIR RIGHT OF 
WAY AND TO EXCHANGE WITH U. S. GOV'T. 
FOR REMAINDER OF RESERVOIR AREAS. 

From the Official Map and Records of 
Tuolumne Co., U. S. Land Office Records 
and Map of Yosemite National Park 
Commissioners, 


Lands otvnefd by f jhotvn fhus 

„ - * /ie/rji of 

(Aftt Cove/ ar«f minor-son; 


cm 


I 























































































































Id I -t- itH 1#Di/b % -'id* I 

-■ ■'*'•£ s i® • 

h 1 ( ,dn!5 >3?i{ 





4 

«» 















































LEGEND 

Areas of Watersheds shown 
Area of Yosemite National Park 
Mean Annua/ Distribution of Ramfa/t Shown 
National Eorest Reserve boundaries shown 
County boundaries shown 
Pipe Lines shown 
Trestles shown 
Tunnels shown 
Power <£ Pumping dtoitions 
Reservoirs shown 
Canals shown 
Wafers beds shown 


5<ak »f Mi In 


Sheet No. 40 

MAP of the REGION 
between 

SAN FRANCISCO 
and the 

UMMIT of the SIERRAS 

SHOWING 

THE FACTORS 

OF THE 

TUOLUMNE SOURCE 

OF 

WATER SUPPLY 

To accompany report of 
Marsden Manson, City Engineer. 

























































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


97 


The following comparisons will give an idea of the increases: 

Areas, capacities and costs now consid- Areas, capacities and cost esti- 
ered necessary. mated upon in 1902-3. 

Area, 15,450 acres.9,680, increase 60% 

Capacity of storage 336,800,000 gallons. .. .218,400,000 gallons, increase 54% 

Length of pipe, 643 miles.455 miles, increase 41% 

Cost per acre, $788.00.$910.00, decrease 13% 

Cost per mile of pipe, $18,950.00.$19,340.00 

These decreases are principally due to the smaller pipe required in 
the districts covered by the auxiliary water supply system for fire protection. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TUOLUMNE SOURCE AS AN 

AUXILIARY SUPPLY. 

No adequate comparison can be made with the existing system either 
as regards purity and abundance in every part of the city. It is, however, 
necessary to consider the cost of acquiring the existing system if a reason¬ 
able price can be agreed upon, as a sound business policy requires; then 
the cost of extensions and betterments of this source as immediate require¬ 
ments demand; and, to introduce a re-enforcing supply from the Tuolumne 
source. 

Accepting Captain Payson ’s offer, with a re¬ 
duction of $2,000,000.00 for properties not 
required by the city as a basis for this esti¬ 
mate only, we have cost of acquiring the 

Spring Valley sources and supply.$30,000,000.00 

Betterments and extensions now imperatively 

needed . 1,500,000.00 

Introduction of 30,000,000 gallons daily from 

Tuolumne source . 19,686,660.00 


Total . $51,186,660.00 

The cost of operating either system is about the same, but the cost 
of repairs and extensions will be much greater upon the acquisition of the 
older works. 

There will be a material saving to the city in the acquisition of the 
existing system, as the high salaries, litigations, cost of experts, printing 
elaborate reports, etc., etc., now incurred represents an invested capital 
of at least $1,500,000.00 at 5%. The city pays all expenses incurred in 
these salaries and litigations by both the company and itself, a condition 
not generally known and considered. 

This report and the one preceding it are intended to place before this 
community the most important and vital matter which can confront the 
people of any city. Upon a proper solution of this problem of a pure 
and adequate water supply rests the health and well being of its homes, 
and the development, stability and protection of its properties and indus¬ 
tries. It is necessary to advance now on clean-cut lines, and in order 
to give the widest opportunity for a full consideration, it is recommended 
that the full report of City Engineer Grunsky, the present report and 
that of July 23, 1908, with such illustrative drawings as are necessary to 











98 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


fully explain them be published and widely distributed to the citizens. 

The question of municipal ownership of this necessity cannot be 
allowed to drift, nor be delayed without material loss to both the seller and 
the buyer. If a reasonable price can be submitted such as the electors 
of this city will be justified in approving, the development of the Tuolumne 
source as an auxiliary supply with control of its own power will follow 
in due time. But if no satisfactory basis for the purchase of the existing 
supply can be submitted by the Spring Valley Water Company, the develop¬ 
ment of the Tuolumne source and its independent power should be pushed 
to completion as herein indicated. 

In either event the prompt acquisition of the Tuolumne rights and 
properties, now available, should be accomplished; for the reason, made 
doubly manifest by the letter of the company of date September 11, 1908, 
indicating that a supplementary Sierra source is a necessary adjunct to its 
resources to adequately meet the needs of this community. 

When such a source is introduced it should be from the purest and 
nearest supply; and from the storage reservoirs to the faucet with all inter¬ 
mediate rights of power under the complete ownership and control of the 
city. 

In considering the acquisition and operation of this necessity, it must 
be constantly kept in mind that the interest upon the capital invested comes 
from the rates and not from the taxation of properties. (See section 12, 
Article XII, of the Charter.) Moreover, that a sinking fund may be 
derived from either source of revenue and from the relief of taxation now 
imposed for lighting streets and public buildings. This averages more 
than $300,000.00 per year; capitalized at 5%, this expenditure represents 
an investment of $6,000,000.00. The present gross income from water is 
about $2,000,000.00. 

Of this income the interest on $1,500,000.00 is spent by the city and 
through the Spring Valley Company in salaries, legal expenses, expert 
services, printing, etc., etc.—expenses which could be avoided by a removal 
of the prime cause of litigation, namely, ownership by a corporation. 

The } r early amounts paid for lighting streets and public buildings is 
over $300,000.00, which sum is collected by taxation and would not be a 
burden to the taxpayer if this lighting is made an incident to the public 
ownership and operation of the Tuolumne source; or, if applied as a sinking 
fund, this saving would, in 40 years, pay oft' a large fraction of the bonds 
issued for the acquisition. 

That the water supply of any municipality is capable of yielding a 
large revenue is abundantly proven by the tenacity with which corporations 
seek and hold the control of this necessity; and by the beneficial results 
which have come to municipalities which have retained or regained such 
ownership. The benefits of the highest order and the advance in values 
of all properties and industries conferred by municipal ownership of this 
necessity warrants its prompt acquisition .by either purchase at reasonable 
rates, or by the construction of an independent supply if this purchase be 
thwarted by exorbitant demands. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MARSDEX MANSON, City Engineer. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


99 


COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH RE¬ 
PORTS OF CITY ENGINEER ON PLANS AND ESTIMATES OF 
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY, AND OUTLINING 
AND RECOMMENDING FIRST STEPS NECESSARY IN ACQUIR¬ 
ING RESERYOIR LANDS, RIGHTS OF WAY, ETC. 

Office of Board of Public Works. 

San Francisco, September 21, 1908. 

To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of 
San Francisco. 

Gentlemen: There is herewith transmitted plans and estimates of 

date July 23, 1908, prepared by the City Engineer under authority of 
and in compliance with Ordinance No. 492 (New Series), approved June 
23, 1908. This report outlines and recommends the first steps necessary 
for the acquiring of reservoir lands, rights of way, etc., for the original 
construction of works for a water supply, the designated available sources 
being Tuolumne River, Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy reservoirs, State 
of California. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. 

By ROBT. J. LOUGH ERY, Secretary. 

Enclosure. 

REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER 

ON THE 

Cost of the Original Construction of Water Works 

FROM 

HETCH HETCHY AND LAKE ELEANOR AND TUOLUMNE RIVER. 

Office of Board of Public Works. 

San Francisco, July 23, 1908. 

To the Honorable the Board of Public Works of the City and County of 
San Francisco. 

Gentlemen: Under Ordinance No. 492, approved June 23, 1908, I am 
directed to file with your Honorable Board plans and estimates for the orig¬ 
inal construction of works for a water supply, the designated available 
sources being Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy Valley and the waters of 
Tuolumne River, in Tuolumne County, California. It will be observed 
that these sources were selected by this city in 1901 and rights thereto were 
filed upon October 15th of that year. These applications were prosecuted 
to the granting of the rights at Washington May 11, 1908, by the Hon. 
James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior. 

There are two essential conditions fixed in this grant which must be 
complied with to make it of effect in giving this city the extremely valu¬ 
able rights designated therein: namely, stipulations Nos. 1 and 9. Under 
the first of these conditions, the city must perfect its acquisition of owner- 


100 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


ship, and under the other condition, No. 9, the city authorities must submit 
to popular vote, within two years after the date of grant, namely, May 11, 
1908, the acceptance or rejection thereof. The sooner this can be done the 
better, as it gives the electors of this city an opportunity to say whether 
they want this source of water supply or whether they prefer the existing 
condition with its risks, entanglements, endless litigations and annual rate 
fixing. If the people desire to accept the source now open to them, they 
are entitled to an opportunity to say so; their action, if affirmative, will 
afford the present administration time to perfect land purchases and ex¬ 
changes before March 4, 1909, when the U. S. officers familiar with this 
subject will in part retire. 

To carry out the first stipulation or condition of this grant, options were 
obtained upon all patented lands in Hetch Hetchy Valley and upon four 
other tracts adjacent, for exchange for lands in the reservoirs; and an 
effort made to close them by making the first payment of $10,000.00. This 
step was thwarted by adverse action of the Auditor, whereupon this pay¬ 
ment was met by a popular loan to the city by high-minded citizens. The 
advantageous purchase of lands in and adjacent to these reservoirs named 
in the grant was thereby kept possible for a time under the terms of the 
options now held, but forfeitable unless the later payments named therein 
be made. These aggregate $165,800.00, which, with interest, fees, etc., may 
reach $185,000.00. 

One of the conditions essential to fulfilling this option is the payment 
not later than 90 days, after an election early in November or by February 
12, 1909, of $50,000.00 upon the purchase price. (See options and agree¬ 
ments in the hands of his Honor, the Mayor.) The present status, there¬ 
fore, of this vital matter is as follows: 

The most abundant, available and purest source has been selected and 
its acquisition now depends upou the carrying out of the certain conditions 
above reviewed. These conditions, considering the value of the acquisition, 
are extremely simple, and require less expenditure to complete than has ever 
been necessary for the acquisition of an adequate source of water supply 
for any community of the size of San Francisco. Whatever may be the 
outcome of the present controversies over the rates and purchases of the 
existing supply, the magnificent sources now available should be secured, 
and no effort nor step should be delayed to make this an accomplished fact. 

In every effort to secure a municipal water supply since 1871, this city 
has been shunted off the course in one way or another. In the attempt of 
1875-6 the direct purchase of the source under consideration by the city 
was resorted to; in 1900 the objection was made that the Charter had not 
been technically followed; in 1903 the purposes of the city w’ere thwarted 
by representations forestalling the presentation of the city’s application; 
and by the inauguration of an apparently interminable lawsuit over a side 
issue. From 1904 to 1908, and despite official abandonment by Resolution 
of the Board of Supervisors in 1906, the claim of the city wms kept alive 
by individual and unofficial effort. In 1908 it was not found possible to 
tlvwart the case of the city in Washington, but an “offer of sale” was 
made along a line palpably impossible under the Charter; and when the 
direct steps were taken looking to the solicitation of an offer of sale on 
the prescribed line of the Charter, this “offer of sale” was withdrawn and 
another digressive lawsuit pushed to the front in the shape of an injunction. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


101 


What further obstacle will be raised to prevent action by the people of 
this city on this vital question remains to be developed. 

These facts are recalled here in order to emphasize the necessity 
of holding to a persistent and coherent policy so that the efforts to secure 
an adequate supply which have been in progress since 1900 may not be 
artfully turned into irrelevant and abortive lines. The great public inter¬ 
ests and intent should not be diverted from the proper course, namely, the 
acquisition of an adequate source, to be used either as a re-enforcing or as 
an independent supply—the former if a reasonable purchase can be made 
of existing works, the latter if unreasonable and exorbitant demands be 
insisted upon. 

There is, therefore, submitted the following Progress Report upon the 
matter referred to me by your letter forwardiflg Ordinance No. 492 of 
June 23, 1908, directing the submission of plans and estimates of cost of 
the acquisition of a water supply. 

The first essential step in carrying out this Ordinance is the acquisition 
of the available sources designated therein and made possible by the 
grant of May 11, 1908. It will be observed that a considerable portion of 
the cost of this acquisition can, under Section 5, Article XII of the Charter, 
be paid from the annual revenues of the city. It would be manifestly 
unreasonable to subject the city to the burden of a bonded debt to meet 
an expense, much of which can be met as above indicated. I, therefore, 
recommend (1) that the Board of Supervisors be requested to declare 
the acquisition of lands for reservoir purposes a public utility and to 
proceed to acquire the same by purchase and contract; (2) that in order 
to carry out the provisions of the Ordinance and acquire the properties and 
rights essential thereto that a bonded indebtedness of $750,000.00 be in¬ 
curred for the acquisition by purchase or condemnation of lands in and 
adjacent to Lake Eleanor, and such rights of way for reservoirs, flumes, 
canals, etc., as are necessary to carry out the first requirements contem¬ 
plated under the Ordinance and as herein designated. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE RESERVOIRS AND THE DRAINAGE 

TRIBUTARY THERETO. 

Lake Eleanor is situated 136 miles east of San Francisco on the west 
slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It is about 300 acres in extent 
and lies in a broad, fiat valley enclosed bv precipitous walls of granite, 
narrowing at the lower end of the valley. It is 4,700 feet above sea level 
and receives the direct drainage from 83 square miles, and by a diverting 
canal 6 miles long from 103 square miles additional of uninhabitable 
mountain slopes which reach an altitude of 11,000 feet, and receive a 
mean annual precipitation of from 40 to 50 inches, most of which is snow. 
These areas are more than four and one-half (4%) times that tributary 
to the peninsula system of reservoirs, which latter area receives a mean 
annual rainfall of from 35 to 50 inches. It is not now necessary to discuss 
the relative periods of deficiency in precipitation which recur from time 
to time in each area. 


102 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


The capacity of the Lake Eleanor Reservoir is as follows: 


Height of Ham. - Capacity of Reservoir. 

130 feet . 6,282 million gallons 

150 feet .13,108 million gallons 

175 feet .25,000 million gallons 

200 feet .39,000 million gallons 


Hetch Hetchy reservoir is about 140 miles from San Francisco on the 
main fork of the Tuolumne River and is about 3,700 feet above sea level. 
It receives the drainage from 452 square miles of the uninhabitable slopes 
of the Sierra Nevada, reaching to elevation of over 13,000 feet and receiv¬ 
ing a mean annual precipitation of from 40 to 50 inches, nearly all in snow. 
This area is 148 square miles less than that tributary to Sunol dam, but 
this latter area receives a mean annual rainfall of from 15 to 30 inches 
subject to periods of great variation, supports populous and growing towns 
and quite a well distributed and increasing agricultural and pastoral 
population. These comparisons with areas with which you are familiar 
are made to convey a clear conception of the drainage areas and condi¬ 
tions in the Sierras with which equal familiarity is impossible to many. 

The capacity of Hetch Hetchy reservoir is as follows: 


Height of Dam. Capacity of Reservoir. 

100 feet .16,213 million gallons 

150 feet .33,071 million gallons 

200 feet .48,600 million gallons 

250 feet .66,000 million gallons 


A dam at this site 250 feet high Is well within the possibilities of the 
site; and at this height will hold two and one-half times the combined 
capacities of all the peninsula reservoirs. The new Croton reservoir for 
New York holds 31,000,000,000 gallons or less than one-half the Hetch-Hetchv 
reservoir at its reasonable development. 

Moreover, for from five to six months each year the flood discharge 
of Tuolumne River is available for use without drawing on the two reser¬ 
voirs above named. Including Lake Eleanor reservoir at its maximum 
capacity, the combined storage is more than five and a half times that 
of the combined peninsula reservoirs. These comparisons afford a better 
conception of the water resources which it is now possible to secure for 
this city by prompt and effective action. No adequate comparison of the 
ultimate purity of these sources with that now in use is possible, nor 
indeed necessary. 

The water liberated from Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy reservoirs 
will flow along the almost inaccessible gorges of Tuolumne River and 
Cherry Creek about 16 miles to a point in the Tuolumne gorge about 
130 miles distant from San Francisco in an air line, and bv canals and 
conduits planned in 1901, 182 miles. This can be shortened by about 
5% miles. 

Two power and one pumping station are located on this line, also four 
equalizing reservoirs as indicated on the plan submitted herewith. The 
sites for these were tentatively selected in 1901; but it may be possible to 
change these to alternative locations and the alignment of the conduit may 
be slightly corrected. 

There are submitted herewith: 










SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


103 


(1) A general plan of the region from the summit of the Sierras to 
San Francisco, on which are indicated the drainage areas, reservoirs, route 
traversed, and the main features of the problem. 

This plan is entitled: 

Map of the Region between San Francisco and the Summit of the Sierras, 
Showing the Factors of the Tuolumne Source of Water Supply. 

July 24, 1908. 

(2) A plan of Lake Eleanor reservoir. 

(3) A plan of Hetch Hetchy reservoir. 

(Nos. 2 and 3 are reproduced from the surveys of 1901.) 

(4) A plat of lands held under options. 

The reports and estimates of my predecessor, Mr. Grunsky, called 
for $918,000.00 to be expended for lands, litigation, water rights and rights 
of way outside San Francisco. It is not now necessary to provide for the 
expenditure of this amount for the following reasons: (1) The results 
of pending proceedings soliciting offers of sale of the existing supply 
cannot be foreseen. (2) A portion of the required property can be acquired 
by purchase from funds available from the annual revenue. 

I estimate that in addition to these funds, a bond issue of $750,000.00 
should be made available to be sold in amounts of not less than $100,000.00 
as required for the purchase or condemnation of lands, rights of way for 
reservoirs, canals, power stations, etc., etc., as follows: 

ESTIMATE OF COST OF RIGHTS AND LANDS NOW NECESSARY 
TO ACQUIRE FOR A SIERRA WATER SUPPLY. 

For purchase of lands in and adjacent to Hetch Hetchy reservoir. . .$165,800 


Contingencies, fees, etc. 19,200 

For purchase of condemnation of lands for rights of way for canals, 
power and pumping stations, reservoirs. Lake Eleanor lands, 

etc. 465,000 

Contingencies, fees, etc. 100,000 


$750,000 

I, therefore, recommend that a bond issue for the above amount, 
namely, $750,000.00, be submitted to popular vote in November next. This 
will carry out stipulation No. 9 of the grant; and if approved by popular 
vote will make available the means to systematically meet the other condi¬ 
tion of the grant and acquire for the city the rights necessary for the 
ultimate development of a water supply of unparalleled abundance and 
purity. 

In order that the steps herein outlined might be taken in accordance 
with the Charter, I addressed an inquiry to the City Attorney on the 9th 
inst., requesting him to outline the legal steps which are necessary to take 
and secure the rights to these reservoir lands. His reply is submitted 
herewith. 

In conformity with this opinion, I further recommend that, as the 
preliminary ordinance mentioned under I of the City Attorney’s letter 
has been passed (Ordinance No. 4^2, under which these actions are taken). 
This Progress Report carries out the second step in so far as it relates to 






104 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


the acquisition of the reservoir rights, etc. As soon as the provisions of 
the Charter admit, an ordinance calling a special election at which to 
submit to the electors the proposition of incurring a bonded indebtedness 
of $750,000.00 should be prepared and advanced to effect; in order that 
the people of this city may have an opportunity of expressing their ap¬ 
proval or disapproval of acquiring a Sierra source of domestic water supply 
of the rarest purity and abundance; and which has been selected by engi¬ 
neers thoroughly familiar with the available sources and made possible of 
acceptance through the broad and generous policy of the National Govern¬ 
ment in the grant of May 11, 1908; when ownership to these valuable 
rights shall have been thus perfected they can be made the basis of a 
bond issue for their development and utilization. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MARSDEN MANSON, City Engineer. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


105 


APPENDICES TO REPORTS 

ON THE 

WATER SUPPLY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

1900-1908 Inclusive. 

PAGE. 

Filings of James D. Phelan for reservoir rights-of-way. 

C. E. Grunsky, City Engineer. 106 

Petition to the Secretary of the Interior for review in the matter of the 
application of Jas. D. Phelan for rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy 
Valley and Lake Eleanor within the Yosemite National Park. 
Franklin K. Lane, City Attorney. 112 

Letter of the Hon., the Secretary of the Interior to the President, deny¬ 
ing the application of San Francisco, Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, Secre¬ 
tary of the Interior. 128 

Supporting Opinion of the Hon., the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
to the President. Hon. V. H. Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor . 133 

Petition for review to the President in the matter of the application of 
Jas. D. Phelan for rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake 
Eleanor within the Yosemite National Park. Marsden Manson. 135 

Opinion from the Department of Justice to the President of the United 

States. Hon. M. D. Purdy, Acting Attorney-General. 147 

Hearing in San Francisco on the application of the City of San Francisco 

for reservoir sites and rights-of-way (Hetch Hetchy project). 148 

A brief in the matter of reservoir rights-of-way for domestic and 
municipal water supply for the City and County of San Francisco to 
the Secretary of the Interior. Marsden Manson. 169 

Brief of the Modesto Irrigation District in opposition to the City of San 
Francisco for rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake 
Eleanor. L. L. Dennett.170A 

Brief of the Turlock Irrigation District, on behalf of itself and Modesto 

Irrigation District in opposition to said application. P. J. Hazen.... 171 











106 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


PAGE. 

Reply to the statement and argument of counsel on behalf of Modesto 


Irrigation District. Marsden Manson and J. D. Galloway. 204 

Brief to the Secretary of the Interior, praying for the renewal of applica¬ 
tion for reservoir rights-of-way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake 
Eleanor. Marsden Manson. 211 


Petition of Marsden Manson, City Engineer of San Francisco, on behalf 
of the City and County of San Francisco to the Secretary of the 
Interior Department, Washington, D. C., to reopen the matter of the 
application of Jas. D. Phelan for reservoir rights-of-way in the Hetch 
Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor sites in the Yosemite National 

Park .,. 213 

Decision of the Secretary of the Interior Department, Washington, D. C., 
granting the City and County of San Francisco, subject to certain 
conditions, reservoir sites and rights-of-way at Lake Eleanor and 


Hetch Hetchy Valley in the Yosemite National Park. 217 

Refilings of the claims to water from Tuolumne River and Eleanor Creek 223 
Transfer of refilings to water rights by Marsden Manson to City and 

County of San Francisco. 225 

Report of Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald and Chas. D. Marx, consulting 
engineers, on the adequacy of the Tuolumne source of water supply 
for San Francisco, Cal... 227 

FILINGS OF JAMES D. PHELAN 

FOR 

RESERVOIR RIGHTS OF WAY. 

NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 


Notice is hereby given that James D. Phelan claims the water now flowing 
in Tuolumne River at the point where this notice is posted, to the extent of 
ten thousand (10,000) miner’s inches measured under a four-inch pressure. 
The point where this notice is posted is described as follows: 

On the north bank of the Tuolumne River at the outlet of Hetch Hetchy 
Valley and being in the NE V\ of section 17, T. 1 N., R. 20 E., M. D. B & M. 
This notice is nailed to an 8-inch dia. oak tree above the narrowest part of the 
gorge; at the base of the tree being an old United States Geological Survey 
bench mark. 

The water is claimed for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power 
and domestic use, and the place of intended use is in and near the city and 
county of San Francisco, California, and along the line of the proposed conduit. 

It is proposed to divert such waters by means of a dam, to allow the same 
to flow in natural channels, and in canals, tunnels, flumes, wooden and iron or 
steel pipes to the points of intended use, using such dams and other structures 
for its recovery from natural channels and its proper control, as may be re¬ 
quired. 

The size of the canal is to be ten feet wide on the bottom, sixteen feet 
wide on top, six and one-half feet deep on a grade of four feet per mile, or of 
such other dimensions as will give it an equivalent capacity. 








SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


107 


The sizes of flumes, pipes, tunnels and other conduits are to be such as to 
give them sufficient capacity to carry the amount of water claimed. 

(Signed) JAMES D. PHELAN. 

Posted at the request of James D. Phelan on the 29th day of July, 1901. 

H. E. GREEN. 

Witness to posting: 

W. W. COCKINS, JR. 

State of California, County of Tuolumne—ss. 

W. W. Cochins, Jr., and H. E. Green, being each first duly sworn, each 
for himself and not one for the other, depose and say: That on the 29th day 
of July, 1901, H. E. Green posted a full, true and correct copy of the annexed 
and forgoing Notice of Water Appropriation on the north bank of the Tuo¬ 
lumne River at the outlet of Hetch Hetchy Valley, and being in the NE. % of 
section 17, T. 1. N., R. 20 E., M. D. B. & M. This notice is nailed to an 8-inch 
dia. oak tree above the narrowest part of the gorge; at the base of the tree 
being an old United States Geological Survey bench mark. 

(Signed) H. E. GREEN, 

W. W. COCKINS, JR. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of August, 1901. 

(Seal.) F. P. OTIS. 

Notary Public in and for the County of Tuolumne, State of California. 

Office of County Recorder, Tuolumne County, Cal. 

Sonora, Cal., Aug. 6, 1901. 

I, Richard Inch, County Recorder of the County of Tuolumne, State of 
California, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the 
record of the original Notice of Water Location recorded in my office on the 
6th day of August, 1901, in Book 1, Vol. 10, of Claims, at page—, and that 
the same is a full, true and correct copy of such original record, and of the 
whole thereof. 

Attest my hand and the seal of my office, this 6th day of August, A. D. 
1901. 


(Seal.) 


(Signed) R. INCH, 

County Recorder of Tuolumne County. 


NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 

Notice is hereby given that James D. Phelan claims the water now flow¬ 
ing in Eleanor Creek at the point where this notice is posted, to the extent of 
five thousand (5,000) miner’s inches measured under a four-inch pressure. 
The point where this notice is posted is described as follows : 

On the west bank of the Eleanor Creek about three-quarters of a mile be¬ 
low the outlet of Lake Eleanor; and is in the NW. 14 of section 3, T. 1 N., R. 
19 E., M. D. B. & M. This notice is nailed to a pine tree 16-inch dia. 60 feet 
west of creek. 

The water is claimed for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power 
and domestic use, and the place of intended use is in and near the City and 
County of San Francisco, California, and along the line of the proposed con¬ 
duit. 

It is proposed to divert such waters by means of a dam to allow the same 
to flow, in natural channels, and in canals, tunnels, flumes, wooden and iron 
or steel pipes to the points of intended use, using such dams and other struc- 


108 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


tures for its recovery from natural channels and its proper control as may be 
required. 

The size of the canal is to be ten feet wide on the bottom, sixteen feet wide 
on top, six and one-half feet deep on a grade of four feet per mile, or of such 
other dimensions as will give it an equivalent capacity. 

The sizes of flumes, pipes, tunnels and other conduits are to be such as to 
give them sufficient capacity to carry the amount of water claimed. 

(Signed) JAMES D. PHELAN. 

Posted at the request of James D. Phelan on the 29th day of July, 1901.* 

Witness to posting: H. E. GREEN. 

W. W. COCKINS, JR. 

State of California, County of Tuolumne—ss. 

W. W. Cockins, Jr., and H. E. Green, being each first duly sworn, each for 
himself and not one for the other, depose and say: That on the 29th day of 
July, 1901, H. E. Green posted a full, true and correct copy of the annexed 
and foregoing Notice of Water Appropriation on a board, nailed to a pine 
tree 16 inches in diameter 60 feet west of Eleanor Creek, in the NW. of 
Sec. 3, T. 1 N., R. 19 E., M. D. M. 

(Signed) H. E. GREEN, 

W. W. COCKINS, JR. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Augsut, 1901. 

(Seal.) F. P. OTIS. 

Notary Public in and for the County of Tuolumne, State of California. 

Office of County Recorder, Tuolumne County, Cal. 

Sonora, Cal., Aug. 6, 1901. 

I, Richard Inch, County Recorder of the County of Tuolumne, State of 
California, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the 
record of the original Notice of Water Location recorded in my office on the 
6th day of August, 1901, in Book 1, Vol. 10, of Claims, at page—, and that the 
same is a full, true and correct copy of such original record, and of the whole 
thereof. 

Attest my hand and the seal of my office, this 6th day of August, A. D. 
1901. 

(Seal.) (Signed) R. INCH, 

County Recorder of Tuolumne County. 

Under claims to water of this character, no rights can be acquired nor con¬ 
ferred upon the city that conflict with prior rights of other appropriators. It 
was well known that the water of Tuolumne River is used to some extent for 
mining and irrigation purposes, and that riparian owners also have rights 
which must be respected. The project has, therefore, been matured on lines 
which will entail the least possible interference with vested rights. 

It is not proposed to take from Tuolumne River during its period of or¬ 
dinary flow any of the natural flow of water, but to rely entirely upon the 
water liberated from the reservoirs in which a small part of the river’s great 
surplus Spring flow is to be stored. 

As soon as the necessary maps and papers for the filings on rights of way 
for reservoirs on Tuolumne River and at Lake Eleanor had been prepared, they 
were filed with the register of the Stockton Land Office, accompanied by a 
letter as follows: 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


109 


“San Francisco, Cal., Oct. 16, 1901. 

“To the Register of the Stockton Land Office, Stockton, Cal.: 

“Dear Sir—At the request of Mr. James D. Phelan, I hand you herewith 
“for filing, and to be examined by the General Land Office and submitted to 
“the Secretary of the Interior for his approval: 

“1. An application of Mr. James D. Phelan for a right of way for a res¬ 
ervoir on Tuolumne River in Tuolumne County, California, in T. 1 N., R. 
20 E., and T. 1 N., R. 21 E., M. D. B. & M., consisting of the following maps 
“and papers in duplicate: 

“Field Notes of a survey of a reservoir site on Tuolumne River, Tuolumne 
“County, Cal.; Discharge Estimates of Tuolumne River at Proposed dam 
“site; Affidavit of Applicant; Map of the Reservoir Site on Tuolumne River. 

“2. An application by Mr. James D. Phelan for a right of way for a res¬ 
ervoir at Lake Eleanor, Tuolumne County, California, in T. 1 N., R. 18 E., 
“and T. 2 N., R. 19 E., M. D. B. & M., consisting of the following maps in 
“duplicate : 

“Field Notes of a survey of Lake Eleanor, Tuolumne County, Cal.; Dis¬ 
charge Estimates of Eleanor Creek at proposed dam site; Affidavit of Ap¬ 
plicant ; Map of the Lake Eleanor Reservoir Site. 

“I hand you also for transmission with the above papers a certificate from 
“the Secretary of State certifying that the laws of the State of California gov¬ 
erning corporations, water rights and irrigation, have been filed in the office 
“of the Department of the Interior, together with the Notice of Appropriation 
“of Water by James D. Phelan, from Tuolumne River, posted on the 29th day 
“of July, 1901, and recorded in the records of Tuolumne County. Also, the 
“Notice of Appropriation of Water by James D. Phelan posted in Eleanor 
“Creek below Lake Eleanor on the 29th day of July, 1901, and recorded in the 
“records of Tuolumne County. 

“Yours truly, 

“(Signed) C. E. GRUNSKY.” 

These applications for reservoir rights of way were made in accordance 
with the regulations issued by the Secretary of the Interior for making such 
filings under the Act of Congress of February 15, 1901, entitled “An Act re¬ 
lating to rights of way through certain parks, reservations and other public 
lands.” 

Under this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and empowered 
to permit the use of rights of way through the public lands, forest and other 
reservations of the United States, and the Yosemite, Sequoia and General 
Grant National Parks, California, for electrical plants, poles and lines for the 
generation and distribution of electrical power, and for telephone and tele¬ 
graph purposes, and for canals, ditches, pipes and pipe lines, flumes, tunnels, or 
other water conduits, and for water plants, dams and reservoirs used to pro¬ 
mote mining, irrigation and quarrying, and the manufacture or cutting of tim¬ 
ber or lumber, or the supplying of water for domestic, public, or any other 
beneficial uses, to the extent of the ground occupied by such canals, ditches, 
flumes, tunnels, reservoirs, or other water conduits, or water plants, or elec¬ 
trical or other works, and not to exceed fifty feet each side of the center line 
of such pipe and pipe lines, electrical, telegraph and telephone lines and poles, 
by any citizen, association or corporation of the United States, where it is in¬ 
tended by such to exercise the use permitted under the Act, or any one or 
more of the purposes therein named. 


110 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Under authorization of this Act, the applications for rights of way were 
made in the form of maps showing the outline of the proposed reservoirs and 
dam sites. 

On the right-of-way application for a Tuolumne River reservoir site there 
appear the following affidavits: 

State of California, County of San Francisco—ss. 

I, James D. Phelan, do hereby certify that H. E. Green, who subscribed to 
the accompanying affidavit, is the engineer employed by me; that the survey 
of the said reservoir, as accurately represented in this map and by the accom¬ 
panying field notes, was made under my authority; that the said reservoir, 
as represented on this map and by said field notes, was adopted by me on the 
15th day of August, 1901, as the definite location of the said reservoir de¬ 
scribed as follows: 

Commencing at a stake marked “0,” from which a black oak 10 inches in 
diameter bears S. 10 degrees W. 26.4 feet distant, said stake being 3 inches 
square and 3 feet long in stone mound on ledge of rock bearing S. 80 degrees 
07’ E. 9,863.9 feet from true corner of sections 7, 12, 18, 13, on west boundary 
of T. 1 N., R. 20 E., M. D. B. & M., being the initial point of said survey and 
the point where the 150-foot contour, or water level, intersects the northwest 
end of the axis of the proposed dam; thence following the courses and dis¬ 
tances as set forth in the accompanying field notes, forming the perimeter of 
the 150-foot contour or water level of said reservoir to the place of beginning, 
and containing a total area of eleven hundred and seventy and 45-100 (1170.45) 
acres, was made by him as my engineer and under my authority, commencing 
on the 26th day of June, 1901, and ending on the 1st day of August, 1901, and 
that the survey of said reservoir accurately represents a level line, which is 
the proposed water line of said reservoir, and that said survey is accurately 
represented upon this map and by accompanying field notes, and no lake or 
lake-bed, stream or stream-bed, is used for said reservoir except as shown on 
this map, and that the map has been prepared to be filed for the approval of 
the Secretary of the Interior, in order that I may obtain the benefits of the 
Act of Congress approved February 15, 1901, entitled “An Act relating to 
rights of way through certain parks, reservations and other public lands.” 
And the right of way for the proposed reservoir is desired for irrigation, 
manufacturing purposes, water power and domestic use. 

(Signed JAMES D. PHELAN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of October, 1901. 

(Seal.) (Signed) R. D. McELROY, 

Notary Public in and for the City and County' of San Francisco, State of Cal¬ 
ifornia. 

State of California, County of Los Angeles—ss. 

H. E. Green, being duly sworn, says he is the engineer employed by James 
D. Phelan, that the survey of said Janies D. Phelan’s reservoir described as 
follows: Commencing at a stake marked “0,” from which a black oak 10 
inches in diameter bears S. 10 degrees W. 26.4 feet distant; said stake being 
3 inches square and 3 feet long in a stone mound on ledge of rock bearing S. 
80 degrees, 0.7 seconds E., 9896.3 feet from true corner to sections 7, 12, 18, 
13, on west boundary of T. 1 N., R. 20 E., M. D. B. M., being the initial point 
of said survey, and the point where the 150-foot contour, or water level, inter¬ 
sects the northwest end of the axis of the proposed dam; thence following the 
courses and distances as set forth in the accompanying field notes forming the 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


111 


perimeter of the 150-foot contour or water level of said reservoir to the place 
of beginning, and containing a total area of eleven hundred and seventy and 
45-100 (1170.45) acres, was made by him as engineer employed by James D. 
Phelan, and under his authority, commencing on the 26th day of June, 1901, 
and ending on the 1st day of August, 1901, and that the survey of said reser¬ 
voir accurately represents a level line which is the proposed water line of the 
said reservoir, and that said survey is accurately represented upon this map 
and by the accompanying field notes, and no lake or lake-bed, stream or 
stream-bed, is used for the said reservoir except as shown on this map. 

(Signed) H. E. GREEN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of October, 1901. 

J. W. KEMP, 

Notary Public in and for County of Los Angeles, State of California. 
On the right-of-way map for the Lake Eleanor reservoir site there appear 
the following affidavits : 

State of California, County of San Francisco—ss. 

I, James D. Phelan, do hereby certify that H. E. Green, who subscribed to 
the accompanying affidavit, is the engineer employed by me; that the survey 
of the said reservoir as accurately represented on this map and by the accom¬ 
panying field notes was made under my authority; that the said reservoir as 
represented on this map and by said field notes was adopted by me on the 15th 
day of August, 1901, as the definite location of the said reservoir described as 
follows: Commencing at a stake marked “0,” from which a fir 15 inches in 
diameter bears N. 40 degrees W. 33 feet distant; a burned pine stump 20 
inches in diameter bears N. 31 degrees E. 41 feet distant, and a pine 10 inches 
in diameter bears S. 65 degrees E. 55 feet distant, said stake being 3 inches 
square and 3 feet long, set in a rock mound bearing N. 57 degrees 50 minutes 
E. 1,083 feet distant from quarter section corner common to sections 3 and 4, 
T. 1 N., R. 19 E., M. D. B. & M., being the initial point of said survey and 
the point where the 89-foot contour, or water level, intersects the west end 
of the axis of the proposed dam; thence following the courses and distances as 
set forth in the accompanying field notes, forming the perimeter of the 89-foot 
contour, or water level, of said reservoir, to the place of beginning and con¬ 
taining a total area of eleven hundred and fifty-nine and 21-100 (1159.21) 
acres, was made by him as my engineer and under my authority, commencing 
on the 27th day of May, 1901, and ending on the 24th day of June, 1901, and 
that the survey of said reservoir accurately represents a level line which is 
the proposed water line of the said reservoir, and that said survey is accurately 
represented upon this map and by the accompanying field notes, and no lake 
or lake-bed, stream or stream-bed, is used for the said reservoir except as 
shown on this map, and that the map has been prepared to be filed for the 
approval of the Secretary of the Interior in order that I may obtain the bene¬ 
fits of the Act of Congress approved February 15, 1901, entitled “An Act re¬ 
lating to rights of way through certain parks, reservations and other public 
lands.” And the right of way for the proposed reservoir is desired for irri¬ 
gation, manufacturing purposes, water power and domestic use. 

(Signed) JAMES D. PHELAN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of October, 1901. 
(Seal.) R. D. McELROY, 

Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of Cali¬ 
fornia. 


112 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


State of California, County of Los Angeles—ss. 

H. E. Green, being duly sworn, says he is the engineer employed by James 

D. Phelan, that the survey of said James D. Phelan’s reservoir described as 
follows : Commencing at a stake marked “0,” from which a fir 15 inches in 
diameter bears N. 40 degrees W. 33 feet distant; a burned pine stump 20 inches 
in diameter bears N. 31 degrees E. 41 feet distant, and a pine 10 inches in 
diameter bears S. 65 degrees E. 55 feet distant, said stake being 3 inches 
square and 3 feet long, set in a rock mound bearing N. 57 degrees 50 seconds 

E. 1,083 feet distant from quarter section corner common to sections 3 and 4, 
T. 1 N., R. 19 E., M. D. B. & M., being the initial point of said survey and 
the point where the 89-foot contour, or water level, intersects the west end of 
the axis of the proposed dam; thence following the. courses and distances as 
set forth in the accompanying field notes forming the perimeter of the 89-foot 
contour, or water level, of said reservoir, to the place of beginning and con¬ 
taining a total area of eleven hundred and fifty-nine and 21-100 (1159.21) 
acres, was made as engineer employed by James D. Phelan and under his 
authority, commencing on the 27th day of May, 1901, and ending on the 24th 
day of June, 1901, and that the survey of said reservoir accurately represents 
a level line which is the proposed water line of the said reservoir, and that 
said survey as accurately represented upon this map and by the accompanying 
field notes, and no lake or lake-bed, stream or stream-bed, is used for the said 
reservoir except as shown on this map. 

H. E. GREEN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of October, 1901. 

(Seal.) J. W. KEMP, 

Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 

Copies of the field notes of the survey of the reservoir site on Tuolumne 
River (Hetch Hetchy), and of the field notes of the survey of Lake Eleanor, 
as filed in the Stockton Land Office, are appended to this report. (These field 
notes are in the manuscript copy of the report. They have been omitted 
from this printed report). 

Blue prints of copies of the maps are also herewith submitted as Sheets 
Nos. 1 and 2. * * * * 

PETITION FOR REVIEW 
BY 

HON. FRANKLIN K. LANE 

CITY ATTORNEY 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

Sir:—The City and County of San Francisco respectfully requests that 
you grant a rehearing and review in the matter of the rejection and denial of 
the applications for rights of way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor 
in California, which said rights of way were filed upon and petitioned for by 
James D. Phelan, Esq., of San Francisco, California. The city has succeeded 
to whatever right or interest Mr. Phelan may have had to said rights of way 
by deed of transfer which is set forth later in this petition. 

In making the necessary filings and application for these rights, Mr. Phe¬ 
lan acted for the municipality, of which he was at the time the Chief Execu¬ 
tive officer. Upon receipt of the intelligence that his applications had been 
denied, he called the matter to the attention of the municipal authorities. Ac¬ 
cordingly the Board of Supervisors- of said city and county upon the 24th day 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


113 


of February, 1903, adopted the following resolution: 

RESOLUTION NO. 3399. 

“Whereas, There have been assigned to the City and County of San Fran¬ 
cisco all rights which may be acquired under two reservoir right of way ap¬ 
plications, made in the interest of this municipality by James D. Phelan, as 
referred to in a letter transmitting the assignment, which letter and assignment 
are as follows: 

“ ‘Office of James D. Phelan, 301 Phelan Building, 

“‘San Francisco, Cal., Feb. 20, 1903. 

“ ‘To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 
Francisco. 

“ ‘Gentlemen :—I herewith transmit to you an acknowledged assignment to 
the City and County of San Francisco all my right, title and interest in and 
to Reservoir Site No. 1, on the Tuolumne River, and of Reservoir Site No. 2, 
Lake Eleanor, Tuolumne County, California, arising out of my applications, 
or otherwise, made at the instance of the Board of Public Works in my indi¬ 
vidual name, but really for the benefit of the City and County of San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

“ ‘The reason why individual application was formerly made was to over¬ 
come a legal question as to the power of a municipal corporation to make an 
original application. 

Yours respectfully, 

“‘(Signed) JAMES D. PHELAN.’ ” 

“The undersigned, James D. Phelan, hereby transfers, assigns and sets 
over to the City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation, all his 
right, title and interest in and to any reservoir rights of way that may be 
granted or acquired on Tuolumne River and at Lake Eleanor, in Tuolumne 
County, California, under those certain rights of way applications subscribed 
and sworn to by him on the 15th day of October, 1901, and filed in the Stock- 
ton Land Office, as required by the regulations of the General Land Office, and 
more particularly described as follows : 

RESERVOIR SITE NO. 1. 

“Commencing at a stake marked ‘O,’ from which a black oak 10 inches in 
diameter bears S. 10 deg. W. 26.4 feet distant, said stake being 3 inches square 
and 3 feet long in stone mound on ledge of rock bearing S. 80 deg. 0.7 min. 
E. 9896.3 feet from true corner to Sections 7, 12, 18, 13 on west boundary of 
township 1 north, range 20 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, being the 
initial point of said survey and the point where the 150-foot contour, or water 
level, intersects the northwest end of the axis of the proposed dam; thence 
following the courses and distances as set forth in the accompanying field 
notes, forming the perimeter of the 150-foot contour, or water level, of said 
reservoir to the place of beginning, and containing a total area of eleven hun¬ 
dred and seventy and 45-100 (1170.45) acres; and 

RESERVOIR SITE NO. 2. 

“Commencing at a stake marked ‘O,’ from which a fir 15 inches in diam¬ 
eter bears N. 40 deg. W. 33 feet distant; a burned pine stump 20 inches in 
diameter bears N. 31 deg. E. 41 feet distant, and a pine 10 inches in diameter 


114 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


bears S. 65 deg. E. 55 feet distant, said stake being 3 inches square and 3 feet 
long, and set in a rock mound bearing N. 57 deg. 50 min. E. 1083 feet distant 
from quarter section corner common to sections 3 and 4, township 1 north, 
range 19 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, being the initial point of said 
survey and the point where the 89-foot contour, or water level, intersects the 
west end of the axis of the proposed dam; thence following the courses and 
distances as set forth in the accompanying field notes, forming the perimeter 
of the 89-foot contour, or water level, of said reservoir to the place of begin¬ 
ning, and containing a total area of eleven hundred and fifty-nine and 21-100 
(1159.21) acres. 

“(Signed) JAMES D. PHELAN.” 

“State of California, City and County of San Francisco—ss. 

“On this 20th day of February, one thousand nine hundred and three, 
before me, R. D. McElroy, a Notary Public, in and for the City and County 
of San Francisco, personally appeared James D. Phelan, personally known to 
me to be the same person described in, whose name is subscribed to and who 
executed the within instrument, and he acknowledges that he executed the 
same. 

“In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official 
seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written. 

“(Seal.) (Signed) R. D. McELROY, 

“Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of 

California.” 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT (General). 

Whereas, The Register of the United States Land Office at Stockton, Cal¬ 
ifornia, in forwarding a copy of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior 
in the matter of the reservoir rights of way applications, has sent the follow¬ 
ing communication to James D. Phelan : 

“United States Land Office, 

“Stockton, Cal., Feb. 4, 1903. 

“Ex parte, James D. Phelan. Application for reservoir site right of way. 
“James D. Phelan, Esq., San Francisco, Cal. 

“Sir:—In reference to the above entitled case you are hereby advised that 
on January 20, 1903, the Department denied your application for reservoir right 
of way. 

“L T nless a motion for review of said departmental decision is filed within 
thirty days from notice hereof, said decision will become final and the case 
will be closed by the Commissioner. 

“In the event that you employ resident counsel in Washington to file in 
the General Land Office a motion for review, you should, in order to protect 
your interests, promptly notify this office to that effect. 

“Very respectfully, 

“(Signed) JOHN D. MAXEY, Register.” 

There was transmitted with this communication the following: 

“Department of the Interior, 

“Washington, Jan. 20, 1903. 

“Filed February 5, 1903, in U. S. Land Office, Stockton, Cal. 

“The Commissioner of the General Land Office. 

“Sir:—Your letter of April 1, 1902, has been received submitting for my 
consideration, with a view to approval, maps, field notes and other papers 
composing the application of James D. Phelan of San Francisco, California, 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


115 


for right of way for two reservoirs in the Yosemite National Park for the 
purpose of storing water for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power 
and domestic use, under the provisions of the act of February 15, 1901 (31 
Stats., 790). 

“The sites are as follows : No. 1 reservoir site on Tuolumne River, Tuol¬ 
umne County, California, commencing at a stake marked O. - acres. Site 

No. 2, Lake Eleanor, Tuolumne County, California, commencing at a stake 
marked O, -acres. 

“In response thereto, I have to state that upon careful consideration of 
this case the conclusion has been reached that it would not be expedient to 
accord favorable consideration to the applications presented by Mr. Phelan 
for the privilege in question in the Yosemite National Park, and they are ac¬ 
cordingly denied. 

“It is proper to add that an examination of the maps and field notes in 
this case indicates a considerable portion of the right of way desired is over 
patented lands, and as to these the Department has no authority to grant 
privileges. Furthermore, it appears that the survey made of the desired sites, 
the results of which are embodied in the maps forming a part of this applica¬ 
tion was not authorized by this Department. 

“All the papers accompanying your letter of April 1st are herewith re¬ 
turned. Very respectfully, 

“(Signed) E. A. HITCHCOCK, Secretary, F. R.” 

Pats, and Miscls. Div., 1372-1902. 

Whereas, It is necessary that this city and county should secure from the 
Sierra Nevada mountains a supply of pure water, either to serve independently 
of, or supplemental to, the established works, and it appearing that the Tuol¬ 
umne River with its tributary, Eleanor Creek, is the most available Sierra 
Nevada source, therefore, 

Resolved, That the City Attorney and the Board of Public Works be di¬ 
rected to file a motion for review of the decision of the Secretary of the Inte¬ 
rior and to take all steps and proceedings that may be necessary to protect the 
city’s interests in the reservoir right of way applications herein referred to. 

And the Clerk is hereby directed to advertise this resolution in the Even¬ 
ing Post newspaper. 

In Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, February 24, 1903. 

Adopted by the following vote: 

Ayes—Supervisors Alpers, Booth, Brandenstein, Braunhart, Comte, Con¬ 
nor, Curtis, Eggers, Loughery, Lynch, McClellan, Payot, Wilson, Wynn. 

Absent—Supervisors Bent, Boxton, D’Ancona, Sanderson. 

CHAS. W. FAY, Clerk. 

Approved, San Francisco, February 24, 1903. 

E. E. SCHMITZ, 

Mayor and ex-officio President of the Board of Supervisors. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

San Francisco wishes to obtain a supply of pure mountain water for do¬ 
mestic use. 

Examination has been made into all available sources of water supply by 
a body of the most eminent engineers upon this Coast and it is their determi¬ 
nation that the Tuolumne River is the most available source of such supply. 




116 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


In order, however, to use and make available this water is is essential 
that reservoir sites be acquired in the Sierra Nevada Mountains along the 
course of the river or its tributaries. 

The most practicable sites are those petitioned for, namely, the Hetch 
Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor. With these reservoir sites the supply 
needed may be secured. Without these sites no such supply can be secured. 

That there can be no higher use to which water may be put than domestic 
use is testified to by the authorities of the United States Government itself, 
who, in the report of Elwood Mead (Bulletin 100, Department of Agriculture, 
P. 398), lay down the proposition that the “domestic use of water should take 
precedence over all other uses.” 

The city does not purpose the diversion of the ordinary flow of waters 
from their natural channels, nor the reduction -of the normal flow in any 
stream. The scheme which has been carefully planned under the most expert 
guidance at command, is to hold back in mountain reservoirs a portion of the 
flood waters, which now run to waste during the winter months. The whole 
course of the stream has been surveyed and examined by engineers, who have 
reported elaborately, as will hereafter be shown, and it is their conclusion that 
the flood waters of the Tuolumne afford a supply pure in quality and suffi¬ 
cient in size to meet the present and all future demands of the city. To what 
extent the city has gone in search for a water supply is not suggested in the 
extracts from the reports of the City Engineer and Board of Public Works 
which are herein incorporated. The extracts given show how fully the Tuol¬ 
umne supply has been investigated, but in addition thereto all other possible 
sources within 200 miles of San Francisco were considered and it was only 
after full investigation that the Tuolumne source was determined upon as that 
most available. Among the engineers who have had this work in hand for the 
city are the late Colonel Geo. H. Mendell, formerly of the U. S. Army; Mr. 
Marsden Manson and Mr. C. E. Grunsky, than whom no men of their pro¬ 
fession rank higher in the confidence and good opinion of the people of the 
State. 

It may be asked, why this urgent demand for a water supply system owned 
by the municipality. 

In addition to the reasons hereafter given as to the necessity for a more 
bountiful supply of good water than is at present furnished, this answer can 
be made: The Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, which was 
drafted by a Board of Freeholders elected by the citizens of San Francisco 
and was adopted by vote of the people as the organic law of the municipality, 
and which went into effect January 8, 1900, contains this provision: 

ARTICLE XII. 

Acquisition of Public Utilities. 

It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intention of the people of the 
city and county that its public utilities shall be gradually acquired and ulti¬ 
mately owned by the city and county. To this end it is hereby ordained: 

“Section 1. Within one year from the date upon which this Charter shall 
“go into effect, and at least every two years thereafter until the object ex¬ 
pressed in this provision shall have been fully attained, the Supervisors must 
“secure through the City Engineer plans and estimates of the actual cost of 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


117 


“the original construction and completion by the city and county of water 
“works. * * * * 

“In securing estimates of the original cost and of the construction and 
“completion of water works by the city and county, the Supervisors must se- 
“cure and place on file plans and estimates of the cost of obtaining from all 
“of the several available sources a sufficient and permanent supply of good, 
“pure water for the city and county, in order that propositions for the acqui¬ 
sition, construction and completion thereof, and the incurring of municipal 
“indebtedness therefor, may be submitted to the electors of the city and county 
“as hereinafter set forth. 

“Sec. 2. After such plans and estimates shall have been procured and 
“filed, the Supervisors shall, at as early a date as they may deem for the best 
“interests of the city and county, enter into negotiations for the permanent ac¬ 
quisition by the city and county, by original construction, condemnation or 
“purchase of such or any of said public utilities as they may regard most im¬ 
portant to the city and county, to be first acquired and to formulate and sub- 
“mit to the electors of the city and county at a special election, propositions 
“for the permanent acquisition and ownership thereof.” 

Following this expressed determination of the people to own a water 
works system the municipal authorities have had the necessary plans and esti¬ 
mates made and are now prepared to submit the Tuolumne project to the peo¬ 
ple at a special bond election. And the one obstacle to the carrying out of this 
plan is the failure as yet to secure the necessary concessions from the Depart¬ 
ment of the Interior. When these have been secured the way will be made 
straight to an election at which the people will determine whether or not they 
wish to issue the proper bonds for this project. If the Department does not 
permit the use of the reservoir sites asked for by the city the project of ob¬ 
taining water from the Tuolumne must be abandoned and the city compelled 
to forego its purpose to obtain such water supply as it desires. 

San Francisco may have as fine a water supply as any city in the world— 
pure snow water from the Sierras—if the Secretary of the Interior will but 
grant to her the permission to build two dams, one at the western end of the 
Hetch Hetchy canyon, and the other below Lake Eleanor. But the canyon 
and the lake are beauty spots, they have been wisely reserved by the United 
States as portions of the Yosemite National Park so that they might be re¬ 
tained as places of resort. There is no suggestion or thought of changing 
these conditions. To hold back the waste waters which flow through the 
Hetch Hetchy canyon so that the present canyon floor would be completely 
covered by water would in no way change the aspect of the canyon itself or 
make it any less beautiful than it now is. Instead of a stream, flanked at its 
high stages by marsh lands, flowing through a canyon perhaps a quarter of a 
mile to a half mile wide, the stream and marsh would be widened into a moun¬ 
tain lake the width of the great gorge. The beauty and grandeur of Hetch 
Hetchy lies in the height and form of the grand piles of rock which make the 
sides of the canyon, and these would, if possible, be made more majestic by 
flooding the narrow strip of land at their base. 

SAN FRANCISCO’S PRESENT WATER SUPPLY. 

San Francisco is at present supplied with water by a private company, the 
Spring Valley Water Works. Its sources of supply are near by. 


118 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Until 1888 all of the water supplied by this company to San Francisco 
came from peninsula sources west of San Francisco Bay, mainly from storage 
reservoirs in which the winter run-off waters are caught and held for use. The 
Water Company draws in times of shortage upon Lake Merced, which is a 
body of fresh water, but slightly above sea level, encompassed by sand hills, 
close by the ocean shore in the southwesterly portion of San Francisco. Lake 
Merced is classed as an undesirable source of water on account of the increas¬ 
ing density of population in its watershed. The necessity for guarding against 
pollution of water sources has been recognized and has led the Water Com¬ 
pany to acquire by purchase the greater portion of the watershed area tribu¬ 
tary to the reservoirs on the peninsula south of San Francisco—about twenty- 
eight out of thirty-four square miles. 

Lobos Creek is an additional source of supply, also within the limits of 
San Francisco, claimed by the Water Company. Referring to this source, the 
City Engineer, under date of December 5, 1901, in a report to the Board of 
Public Works of San Francisco, says: “Lobos Creek is a small stream flow¬ 
ing westerly from Mountain Lake, at the Marine Hospital, on the southerly 
“line of the Presidio, to a discharge into the ocean at Baker’s Beach.* * * 

“It is estimated that about 1400 families live within this watershed. * * * 

“Three large hospitals are to be noted within the watershed—French Hospi¬ 
tal, erected in 1894; Children’s Hospital, which discharged its sewage for some 
“years into a sewer without an outlet, and the U. S. Marine Hospital. Laurel 
“Hill Cemetery, for which about 40,000 interments are reported, lies for the 
“greater part in the watershed area directly tributary to Lobos Creek. Odd 
“Fellows’ Cemetery, with about 33,000 interments, lies entirely within this wa¬ 
tershed. Small portions of the westerly ends of Calvary and of Masonic 
“Cemeteries are also within this drainage basin. * * * Lobos Creek should 

“not be considered a suitable source of supply for water for domestic use.” 
No water is, at present, supplied to the city from this source. 

In 1888, Alameda Creek water was added to the sources of supply. The 
natural flow of the creek was intercepted near Niles, carried under the upper 
end of San Francisco Bay, and put under pressure by pumps at Belmont. 
About 7,000,000 gallons per day were thus obtained. 

In the fall of 1900, this supply was augmented, and quality of the water 
improved, by bringing into service filter galleries constructed in the gravel 
beds of the Sunol Valley at the confluence of Laguna and Calaveras Creeks. 
Artesian waters, too, have been developed near Pleasanton, and are added to 
the natural flow of Laguna Creek some miles above the Sunol gravels. This 
supply was thus increased to an aggregate of about 10,000,000 gallons per day 
and a further increase to about 15,000,000 gallons is claimed to be possible 
without recourse to storage reservoirs. These sources of water supply which 
the Spring Valley Water Works own or control on the eastern side of the Bay 
of San Francisco, and others which may be regarded as possible sources, are 
hardly available, because the tributary lands, the collecting ground of these 
waters, are at the present time under a high state of cultivation. Moreover, 
all the water gathered on that side of the bay should by right belong to the 
cities on that side, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro. Haywards and 
others, which are rapidly growing and themselves are inadequately supplied. 
So that there are two objections to looking further upon that side of the bay, 
even assuming that further water development is possible there, viz: the need 
of the near-by cities for the water there gathered, and the danger of pollution, 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


] 19 


because such lands are now under cultivation, and more or less thickly in¬ 
habited. Within this basin lie two towns, Livermore and Pleasanton, and 
ownership of the whole basin is concededly impossible. 

The total water supply at this time within the command of the Spring 
Valley Water Works approximates 35,000,000 gallons daily and of this total 
nearly 30,000,000 is the present average daily consumption. Practically all of 
the land useful for watershed and reservoir purposes upon the peninsula has 
been bought by, or is under the control of, the Spring Valley Water Works 
and the sources on the eastern side of the bay have been placed under requisi¬ 
tion. The city is growing in population at a rate never before equaled in its 
history, and the prospect now is that by the time the next census is taken San 
Francisco will contain over five hundred thousand inhabitants. Taking the 
present average daily consumption of water per inhabitant as a basis, it has 
been computed by the City Engineer that forty million gallons per day will be 
necessary to supply the San Francisco of half a million population. It is the 
conclusion of all who have carefully examined into the question of water sup¬ 
ply for San Francisco that if the city is to have a full and adequate supply of 
clear and wholesome water it must look to the Sierras. 

SAN FRANCISCO MUST PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE. 

The time has come when San Francisco must make suitable provision for 
its future needs. Referring to this matter, the following letter bearing date of 
January 23rd, 1901, may be quoted: 

“To the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, 

“Of the City and County of San Francisco. 

“Gentlemen :—The Water Supply Investigation has been advanced suffi¬ 
ciently to justify the conclusion that San Francisco will ultimately be in need 
“of a source of water supply from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, either with 
“or without the utilization of the established and nearer sources. Preliminary 
“examinations demonstrate the practicability of bringing in such a supply. 

“Under these circumstances, the acquiring of necessary water rights and 
“storage facilities should not be overlooked. They should be secured as op¬ 
portunity offers to the end that when the time comes works may be estab¬ 
lished adequate to meet the future needs of this city. 

“To prevent certain privileges and rights that may be of vital importance 
“from falling into the hands of speculators, private individuals or private cor¬ 
porations adverse to the interests of this city, and as the regulations of the 
“Department of the Interior permit the filing of applications and the setting 
“apart to individuals or corporations of reservoir sites in the public domain, 
“application should at once be made to the Secretary of the Interior to set 
“apart for the use of this city the Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor res¬ 
ervoir sites. 

“If this can not be done at once, it may be possible to have these lands, 
“which lie entirely within the Yosemite National Park, withdrawn from entry 
“for reservoir purposes for a reasonable time in order that this city may have 
“an opportunity to perfect a formal application therefor. 

“It will undoubtedly be at once recognized, that the use to which the 
“waters to be stored are to be put, is the highest possible beneficial use to which 
“water can be put. Very respectfully, 

(Signed) “C. E. GRUNSKY, 

“City Engineer.” 


120 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


The need of securing a permanent supply of pure water being recognized 
an investigation was authorized by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 
As a result of this investigation the sources of supply now applied for have 
been reported upon in a progress report on the Water Supply Investigation, 
dated August 12, 1901, and published in the Municipal Reports of San bran- 
cisco, 1900-1901 (Appendix, pp. 232 to 430), and in a report on the Tuolumne 
River Project dated July 28, 1902. Extracts from these reports are hereinafter 
presented. 

The availability of Lake Eleanor and of the Hetch Hetchy Valley on 
Tuolumne River as sites for water storage has been recognized by the United 
States authorities. Possible storage and cost of works for the utilization of 
these storage sites are indicated in reports of the United States Geological 
Survey. 


THE PHELAN FILINGS. 

In order to benefit by the provisions of the act entitled “An Act relating 
“to Rights of Way through certain Parks, Reservations and other Public 
“Lands,” approved February 15, 1901, and in compliance with the “Regulations 
“concerning permission to use the right of way over the public lands, forests 
“and other reservations of the United States and the Yosemite, Sequoia and 
“General Grant National Parks for telegraph and telephone lines, electrical 
“plants, canals, reservoirs, tramroads,” etc., approved July 8, 1901, the neces¬ 
sary surveys were made and applications for reservoir rights of way were 
filed. The filings were made in the interest of San Francisco by James D. 
Phelan, at the time Mayor of the city. The filings were not made by the mu¬ 
nicipality in its name for the reason that no precedent for such proceedings 
had been established and for the further reason that it was desirable to delay 
the publication of the city’s intention with reference to the utilization of a 
mountain source of supply. 

Referring to these matters the City Engineer may be quoted in his report 
above referred to on the Tuolumne River project: 

“The information presented to the Board of Public Works and to the Su¬ 
pervisors during the last fiscal year relating to the investigation of the vari¬ 
ous available sources of water supply, as set forth in the progress report 
“heretofore submitted, establishes Tuolumne River as the most available source 
“of supply for municipal water works entirely independent of the established 
“system owned by the Spring Valley Water Works. 

“Instructions were, therefore, issued by you under the authorization of the 
“Board of Supervisors to the City Engineer to make a special study of the 
“Tuolumne River Project, to make the necessary surveys, to prepare plans of 
“water works, based upon this source of supply, and to present a revised cost 
“estimate based upon actual survey of canal and pipe line routes, and includ¬ 
ing in the project the pumps, receiving and service reservoirs, and distribut¬ 
ing system of pipes required within the city. 

“The Board of Public Works called the attention of Mayor Phelan to the 
“importance of early action in this matter, and, after repeated conferences, it 
“was determined to proceed at once with surveys at both Lake Eleanor and 
“the Hetch Hetchy Valley, which could be used as a basis for reservoir right 
“of way locations. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


121 


“It was determined that all applications for rights of water and reservoir 
“sites should be made in the name of Mayor Phelan, because there were no 
“provisions in the regulations issued by the Department of the Interior under 
“which a municipality could file on a reservoir site, and information had been 
“received from the Commissioner of the General Land Office that no such 
“filing had ever been made and it was undecided whether it could be done, 
“and for the further reason that the necessity of preparing and filing docu- 
“ments to establish the right of San Francisco to proceed in this matter might 
“be obviated, thereby avoiding publicity that would otherwise have followed 
“any authorization for such purpose by the Board of Supervisors.” 

REGULATIONS OF GENERAL LAND OFFICE COMPLIED WITH. 

The regulations issued by the Commissioner of the General Land Office 
relating to the act of February 15, 1901, require that, “Such application should 
“be made in the form of a map and field notes, in duplicate, of the center line 
“of the right of way or of the pipe, telegraph, telephone, or electrical line, ca- 
“nal, conduit or reservoir, and must be filed in the local land office for the dis¬ 
trict in which the land traversed by the right of way is situate; if in more 
“than one district, duplicate maps and field notes need be filed in only one dis¬ 
trict and single sets in the others. The maps, field notes, evidence of water 
“rights, etc., and, when the applicant is a corporation, the articles of incorpo- 
“ration and proofs of organization, must be prepared and filed in accordance 
“with the then existing regulations, under the general right-of-way acts, ap¬ 
propriate changes being made in the prescribed forms so as to specify and 
“relate to the act under which the application is made”; and the regulations, 
approved June 27, 1900, “Concerning Right of Way for Canals, Ditches and 
“Reservoirs over the Public Lands and Reservations,” contain the following: 
“In submitting maps for approval under this act, however, which in any wise 
“appropriate natural sources of water supply, such as the damming of rivers, 
“or the appropriation of lakes, such maps should be accompanied by proof 
“that the plans and purposes of the projectors have been regularly submitted 
“and approved in accordance with the local laws or customs governing the 
“use of water in the State or Territory in which the same is located. No 
“general rule can be adopted in regard to this matter. Each case must rest 
“upon the showing filed in support thereof.” These regulations have been 
complied with. 

Notices of appropriation were filed in accordance with the requirements of 
the laws of California and copies of these notices were submitted with the ap¬ 
plications for right of way. Under the laws of California any appropriated 
water may be turned into a natural water course again and reclaimed. Section 
1413 of the Civil Code of California is as follows: “The water appropriated 
“may be turned into the channel of another stream and mingled with its water, 
“and then reclaimed; but in reclaiming it, the water already appropriated by 
“another must not be diminished.” 

Under this law any water liberated from a reservoir may be reclaimed 
from any stream into which it is delivered and the works for its reclamation 
may be constructed when and where required. It is proposed by means of 
dams to restrain the flood flow of natural streams to the extent in each case 
of reservoir capacity. The actual construction of these works is necessarily 
dependent upon the approval of the right of way application. Other ap- 


122 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


propriators can secure title to the use of running water flowing in a river or 
stream or down a canyon or ravine, but, if storage be necessary, such storage 
would have to be elsewhere than in the reservoir sites now applied for where 
it is assumed that the rights of the applicant would take precedence over all 
others. 

No prior notice of appropriation by another person can secure any right 
to the use of water developed in these reservoir sites under rights of way 
secured under the Phelan applications. Neither can any other person secure 
the right to develop a water supply by storage in the reservoir sites applied 
for unless the priority of some other application be recognized, which appears 
impossible, as the priority of the application seems to be admitted. As it is 
not proposed to take the water from the river at its ordinary stages, the right 
to water will result from and will be directly dependent upon the construction 
of the proposed reservoirs. 

When the flood waters, restrained by the proposed dams, are liberated 
and flow down natural channels they do not, as above stated, become avail¬ 
able for appropriation by other appropriators. They are subject to reclama¬ 
tion only by the person who controls the reservoir rights of way, except, of 
course, in the case of negligence in effecting such reclamation, whereby op¬ 
portunity would be given to others to secure rights to the use of such waters 
by actual use and prescription. 

The applicant for a reservoir right of way can not be expected to con¬ 
struct dams before the rights of way have been granted. He can not, there¬ 
fore, forfeit any right to appropriate the stored water so long as the applica¬ 
tion has not been finally disposed of. 

In this case the making of plans for the utilization of the reservoir sites 
was diligently prosecuted by San Francisco. The total expenditure in making 
surveys and planning works for the Tuolumne River project for municipal 
water supply, including a city distributing system, was about $14,000. 

PROPOSED HETCH HETCHY AND LAKE ELEANOR RESERVOIRS. 

The Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor are scenic features of the 
Yosemite National Park. Both localities are at present only accessible by 
trail. They can be reached during a few months only each season. 

Lake Eleanor at present covers about 300 acres. The proposed reservoir 
would cover nearly 1200 acres. At the lowest stage of the reservoir the water 
surface area would at least equal the present extent of the lake. 

Any reasonable regulation in the matter of making the lake accessible 
by wagon roads and to facilitate travel across the lake outlet at the proposed 
dam site would be complied with by the city. The enlargement of the lake 
and its maintenance at its increased extent for nearly the entire year would 
add to the scenic beauty of the locality. 

In the Hetch Hetchy Valley the meadow lands would be permanently 
submerged. The valley floor would become a lake. The abrupt rise of the 
mountain sides from the water surface would render it a unique and highly 
attractive feature of the mountains. A good road to the valley would be con¬ 
structed from the south and a bridge at the dam site would facilitate travel 
across the Tuolumne River. 

There has been no doubt in the minds of the city officials who have 
moved thus far in this matter that ultimately both Lake Eleanor and the 


123 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Hetch Hetchy Valley would be utilized as reservoirs. There is no doubt, 
moreover, that their use as intended under the Phelan right of way applica¬ 
tions would be the highest possible use. 

Some lands are privately owned both in the Lake Eleanor and the 
Tuolumne River reservoir sites. Such ownership should not be considered 
an obstacle to the granting of the requested right of way permissions, because 
such lands can be acquired by right of eminent domain, and should, therefore, 
be considered as being at the disposal of the city. 

HOW THE WATERS STORED ARE TO BE CONVEYED TO 

SAN FRANCISCO. 

The proposed method of utilizing the waters stored in these reservoir 
sites is set forth in the report of the City Engineer of San Francisco under 
date of July 28, 1902, from which it appears that the water liberated from 
the reservoir would flow into and down Tuolumne River to a point about 
one mile below the mouth of Jawbone Creek. It would there be taken from 
the river and carried in tunnels, canals, and pipes along the south wall of 
the river canyon to a point northwesterly from Deer Flat, where a drop at 
Bear Gulch permits the utilization of the water for generating power. Surplus 
water, that is to say, water brought to this point in excess of San Francisco’s 
requirements, would here be liberated and returned to Tuolumne River. The 
water for San Francisco, now at a lower elevation, would again be conveyed 
by canal, tunnels and pipes along and across Tuolumne River into the Dry 
Creek basin some miles northerly from La Grange, where a second power 
station is proposed. From this point the water would be carried in pipes 
across the San Joaquin Valley to the eastern base of the Coast Range, 
westerly from Tracy, where it would be pumped over the Livermore Pass 
at Altamont (elevation 740 feet above sea level). Its flow thence to San 
Francisco would be by gravity in pipes, taking a course around the southerly 
end of San Francisco Bay. 

The generation of power and its utilization to lift the water over Liver¬ 
more Pass has been suggested to avoid the use of pipe lines under heavy 
pressure across the San Joaquin Valley. It would, however, be feasible to 
dispense with pumps near Altamont. 

The proposed head of canal on Tuolumne River would be 135 miles 
distant in an air line from San Francisco. Under the proposed project there 
would be required 28.2 miles of canal, 14.0 miles of tunnel, and 137.8 miles 
of pipe line to bring the water to San Francisco. The cost estimate for the 
construction of a complete water works system, with a capacity of 60,000,000 
gallons per day, entirely independent of the works now in service and 
privately owned, is $39,531,000. 

VALUE OF TUOLUMNE RIVER AS SOURCE OF MUNICIPAL 

SUPPLY. 

It is to be noted that the Tuolumne River ranks first among the sources 
of supply that have been under consideration by San Francisco, as to quality 
and quantity of water. 

In the City Engineer’s progress report of 1901 on the Municipal Water 
Supply Investigation (see Mun. Report, 1900-1901, Appendix, p. 338), the 
Tuolumne River and these reservoir sites are thus referred to: 


124 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


“The Tuolumne River .is one of the rivers which carries the run-off 
“waters of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada into the San Joaquin 
“Valley. Its drainage ground lies between that of the Stanislaus on the 
“north and the Merced on the south. Including the region drained by its 
“lowest foothill tributary, Dry Creek, the river’s drainage basin has an area 
“of 1501 square miles. The eastern limit of this water-shed is the summit 
“of the Sierra Nevada, of which about 45 miles from Grizzly Peak on the 
“north to Mounts Lyell and McClure on the south send their western flow 
“into feeders of this river. 

“The drainage towards the west from the southerly twenty miles of this 
“summit line from Mount Lyell northward almost to Mount Conness, is 
“collected by a number of creeks which converge toward the Tuolumne 
“Meadows. Among these may be named Delaney Creek, the Dana Fork, the 
“Mount Lyell Fork, Rafferty Creek, Unicorn Creek and Budd Creek, giving 
“to the river as it leaves the meadows a drainage area of about 100 square 
“miles. 

“The general course of the river below Tuolumne Meadows is westerly 
“through a canyon which, 25 miles below Tuolumne Meadows, widens out, 
“forming Hetch Hetchy Valley. 

“The drainage basin of the entire upper section of Tuolumne River is 
“of the very best character as a collecting ground for a city water supply. 
“This region is in large part a bare granitic, glaciated formation. Much of 
“it is inaccessible except to the bold mountain climber. Here and there it 
“is sparsely timbered; it is dotted with crystal clear lakes; is absolutely 
“devoid of human life from November to May, except for the occasional 
“wintering of an old settler at some such spot as Lake Eleanor. Except a 
“few square miles on Jawbone Creek, the lower portions of the cliffs and 
“slopes to the river in the lower portion of its canyons and the floor of Hetch 
“Hetchy Valley, all of this drainage basin is above an altitude of 5000 feet, 
“and, finally, it has a fair and reliable precipitation, almost exclusively snow. 

“All of this drainage ground, except its most northerly portion and a 
“narrow strip along its westerly limit, is in the Yosemite National Park, which 
“gives additional assurance that it will always remain as favorable for pro¬ 
duction of water for city use as to-day.” 

WATER FLOW FROM HETCH HETCHY AND LAKE ELEANOR. 

“The natural low-water flow of the river in Hetch Hetchy Valley has not 
‘ ‘been determined. It is probably about 30 second feet. 

“The low-water from Lake Eleanor is insignificant. The discharge almost 
“ceases soon after the snows in its drainage basin have melted. 

“The mean annual rainfall in the drainage basin tributary to Hetch 
“Hetchy Valley and to Lake Eleanor may be noted at about thirty-six inches 
“and the minimum at about eighteen inches. 

“These figures are not determinable from records, as no record of rain- 
“fall or snowfall has been kept at any point of the drainage basin. They are 
“based upon the rainfall diagrams prepared by the State Engineer in 1886, 
“checked by recent records at Sequoia, which lies about twelve miles to the 
“southward of Hetch Hetchy Valley. 

“The mean annual run-off from the water-shed tributary to Lake Eleanor 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


125 


“is about 24,000 million gallons and the minimum about one-half of this 
“amount 

“The mean annual run-off of the water-shed tributary to Hetch Hetchy 
“Valley is about 120,000 million gallons and the minimum about one-half of 
“this amount. 

“Storage capacity of Lake Eleanor, with a dam raising the water surface 
“fifty feet, would be about 15,500 million gallons. 

“Storage capacity of Hetch Hetchy reservoir, with a dam 150 feet high, 
“would be 35,000 million gallons. 

“There is no question as to the sufficiency of the rainfall upon the trib¬ 
utary areas to supply these reservoirs the water required by the city, even 
“though vested rights, such as those which may have been acquired by Tur- 
“lock and Modesto Irrigation districts, be respected without question. The 
“snow melts rapidly in the spring and early summer, nearly all within three 
“to four months, generally April, May and June, and during this period of 
“melting snow the river is always at a high stage, far exceeding any possible 
“use by established canals and ditches.” 

HETCH HETCHY AS A STORAGE SITE. 

/ 

The Hetch Hetchy Valley as a suitable site for storage has been fully 
reported upon in the Twenty-first annual Report of the United States Geo¬ 
logical Survey, by Mr. J. P. Lippincott, who says: 

“The valley proper is about three and one-half miles long and of a width 
“varying from one-quarter to three-quarters of a mile. The rugged granite 
“walls, crowned with domes, towers, spires and battlements seem to rise 
“almost perpendicularly upon all sides to a height of 2500 feet above this 
“beautiful emerald meadow. * * * It was visited in May, when the 

“snows on the glacier meadows on the higher altitudes were rapidly melting, 
“and the river was bank full and overflowing the lower part of the valley. 
“The water is here dammed up, owing to the narrow outlet between the high 
“mountains of granite rock.” 

Based upon a plane table survey of the reservoir site made by Mr. Henry 
Ramel in 1899, it is estimated by Mr. Lippincott that storage capacity is as 
follows : 

Dam 50 feet high. 4,670 million gallons. 

Dam 100 feet high.17,900 million gallons. 

Dam 150 feet high.35,000 million gallons. 

Dam 200 feet high..54,900 million gallons. 

The dam proposed is of the overfall or weir type, 150 feet high. It would 
be constructed of rubble masonry. 

VALUE OF LAKE ELEANOR AS A RESERVOIR SITE. 

The following extracts are from the City Engineer’s later report on the 
Tuolumne River project, under date of July 28, 1902: 

“Lake Eleanor, which has been selected as one of the available reservoir 
“sites, lies in the watershed of Tuolumne River on Eleanor Creek, a tributary 
“of Cherry Creek. Its location is high up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains at 
“an elevation of about 4700 feet. No w&gon road leads to the Lake. It is 
“accessible by trail. 






126 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


“The region tributary to the Lake has been described in the progress 
“report on the water supply investigation for the year 1900-01. There is no 
“question about the desirability of this water-shed area as a collecting ground 
“for water for domestic use. 

“The area of Lake Eleanor is about 300 acres. The drainage area directly 
“tributary to the Lake is 84 square miles. The site for a dam that would be 
“necessary to convert the lake into a storage reservoir is about 1miles 
“below the lower end of the lake on Eleanor Creek, the lake outlet. At this 
“point the creek flows over bare rock, and the mountains upon either side of 
“the creek approach each other sufficiently to make the closing of this lake 
“outlet by means of a dam feasible. The dam in this locality should be con¬ 
structed of rubble masonry. It would have a crest length of about 1300 feet, 
“would be slightly arched up-stream, would have a maximum height of about 
“75 feet, for a height of water surface in the reservoir 50 feet above present 
“lake surface. Its cubical contents in masonry would be about 47,140 cubic 
“yards. The lake surface would be increased by such a structure to 1159 acres. 

“Although stored waters, whether in Lake Eleanor or, as will be here- 
“after shown, in Hetch Hetchy Valley, would be sufficient for the needs of 
“San Francisco, the fact remains that generally from December until some 
“time in June or July, so much water will be available for diversion by the 
“natural flow of the river that the stored water need not be drawn upon 
“during this period. 

“Water liberated from a reservoir at Lake Eleanor would flow in Eleanor 
“Creek to Cherry Creek about 3J/2 miles, in Cherry Creek to Tuolumne River 
about seven miles, and in Tuolumne River a distance of about one mile to the 
“point at which it is proposed to divert water from Tuolumne River into the 
“canal, which is to be the upper section of the artificial conduit from the river 
“to San Francisco.” 


OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

The Secretary of the Interior in his letter to the Commissioner of the 
General Land Office under date of January 20, 1903, announcing the denial 
of the right of way application says: “Furthermore, it appears that the sur- 
“vey made of the desired sites, the results of which are embodied in the maps 
“forming a part of this application was not authorized by this Department.” 
As there are no instructions either in the law nor the regulations to indicate 
that any such permission was to be asked for, or was required by the Depart¬ 
ment, no such request was made. 

The fact is also referred to by the Secretary of the Interior that patented 
lands are within the proposed reservoirs. This should not affect the granting 
of the rights of way. No request is made for any rights from the United 
States authorities on such lands. It is understood to have been the policy of 
the Department in such cases to grant rights of way. If this were not done, 
it would be impossible to utilize any reservoir site on which there are lands 
privately owned. 

In the letter of the Secretary of the Interior above referred to, a copy of 
which was forwarded from the Stockton Land Office, the applications for the 
two reservoir rights of way have been denied on the ground that “it would 
not be expedient to accord favorable consideration to the applications present¬ 
ed by Mr. Phelan.” 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


127 


The building of the dams would not detract from the natural beauties 
and wonders of the Yosemite National Park. As already stated, Lake 
Eleanor never would nor could be drawn dry and Hetch Hetchy Valley would 
assume the character of a mountain lake of unusual beauty, greatly enhancing 
the attractiveness of its surroundings. 

The low summer flow of both Eleanor Creek and the Tuolumne River 
below the proposed dams within the limits of the Park would be increased. 
Masonry dams in keeping with the massive rocks against which they abut 
would add to, rather than detract from, the natural beauties of the two 
localities. 

Attention is called to the fact that it is reasonable to assume that the two 
great rivers which flow through the Yosemite National Park, the Tuolumne 
and the Merced, will not be forever locked up in such a manner as to prevent 
their proper utilization for the benefit of the underlying towns and agricul¬ 
tural lands of the San Joaquin Valley. The waters of the winter and spring 
freshets which flow to the sea unused, often doing great damage, are the 
waters which should be impounded in reservoirs for use in the late summer 
months when the streams are low. The policy of maintaining a closed park 
in this respect in the face of the clear intent of the laws of Congress, cannot 
be adhered to. 

In view of the fact that the law and the regulations specifically provide 
for the granting of such rights of way when the regulations which are issued 
are complied with and the law is followed, it seems reasonable to claim these 
rights of way as a right, unless there be some specific and precise reason why 
these localities should not be utilized for water development purposes, par¬ 
ticularly in these cases in which the use to which the reservoir rights of way 
is to be put is the highest possible use. 

San Francisco, therefore, requests a review of the decision under which 
the applications were denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

FRANKLIN K. LANE, 

City Attorney. 


128 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Letter of the Hon., the Secretary of the Interior, 
to the President, Denying- the Application 

of San Francisco. 

Department of the Interior, Washington. 

February 20, 1905. 

The President: 

Your letter of the 8th instant has been received, in relation to the 
application of the City of San Francisco for permission to obtain its water 
supply from the Yosemite National Park. You state that you have per¬ 
sonally examined into the matter through Mr. P. Y. Long, the city’s 
official representative; that you were advised that the Geological Survey 
favors the granting of the city’s application; that the reservoirs to be 
created are remote from Yosemite Valley, and the granting of the desired 
privilege would not result in damage to the National Park; and you inquire 
whether it would not be proper, first: to grant San Francisco the use of the 
Lake Eleanor reservoir site, and of rights of way for diversion canals 
thereto; second: to grant to San Francisco the right of way for diversion 
canals from the Tuolumne River, below Cherry Creek, when requested; 
and third: to hold the Hetch Hetchy Valley and Tuolumne Meadow reser¬ 
voir sites for the joint use of the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts 
and the City of San Francisco and other municipalities in its neighborhood, 
when it is shown that they are required for the use of either or both of 
the applicants. 

In response thereto, I have the honor to state that before answering 
the interrogatories in question, it will not be improper to give a brief 
statement of the facts in relation to the consideration and disposition of 
the city’s application for water from the Yosemite National Park: 

In April, 1902, James D. Phelan of San Francisco, California, applied 
under the Act of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790), for right of way for 
two reservoirs in the Yosemite National Park and manufacturing pur¬ 
poses, water power and domestic use, the sites being located on the Tuol¬ 
umne River and at Lake Eleanor. Upon consideration thereof, his appli¬ 
cation was denied, on the 20th of January, 1903; and in a letter addressed 
to the Commissioner of the General Land Office on that date, attention 
was directed to the fact that a considerable portion of the right of way 
desired was over patented lands, over which the Department had no 
authority to grant privileges; and, furthermore, that it appeared that the 
survey of the sites in question had been made surreptitiously, and without 
securing the consent of the Department to entering the reservation for 
that purpose. 

Subsequently it appears that Mr. Phelan transferred his alleged water 
rights in the park to the City of San Francisco; and a motion for the 
reopening of the case was favorably considered and a formal hearing was 
accorded, at which the City of San Francisco was represented by counsel, 
and which continued for three days. The report of this hearing has been 
printed, and will be found in a pamphlet hereto attached, marked “Exhibit 
A.” After due consideration of the facts disclosed at such hearing, the 


























SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


129 


conclusion was reached that under existing law the application of the city 
could not be granted; and on the 22d of December, 1903, a letter formally 
denying such application was addressed to the Commissioner of the General 
Land Office, as follows, to wit: 

Commissioner of the General Land Office, 

“Sir: On a rehearing granted at request of the applicant, I have 

given very careful consideration to the petition of the City of San Fran¬ 
cisco for a right of way under the Act of February 15, 1901, for reservoir 
sites at Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor, in Yosemite National 
Park, for the storage of water for municipal purposes. 

‘ ‘ The project contemplates an estimated expenditure of about $39,- 
000,000, which, however, has never been approved by vote of the people 
of the city. 

“It appears that for more than forty years the City of San Francisco 
has been supplied water by the Spring Valley Water Company, a private 
corporation; that, under existing law, the water rates to consumers are 
determined by the city itself; that the quality of the water is good and 
admitted to be within the limits of the standard of potability; and that 
the company has the ability to increase the supply to adequately meet 
the needs of the city almost indefinitely. 

‘ ‘ The city asserts, nevertheless, that the waters it seeks to store at 
Lake Eneanor and Hetch Hetchy Valley are better and that it desires 
to acquire and control its own water supply, which it is empowered to 
do under the provisions of its present Charter. 

“As viewed, however, by the Department the application is confronted 
by legal embarrassments which appear to be surmountable only by the 
exercise of the legislative power of the Government. 

“It is proposed to convert Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy Valley, 
respectively, into reservoirs for the storage of a water supply for the 
city. Both are admittedly scenic features of the Yosemite National Park. 
Lake Eleanor is located high up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains at an 
elevation of 4,700 feet, and is one of the crystal clear lakes which abound 
in the park and are noted for their beauty. Hetch Hetchy Valley is 
widely known for its wonderful natural conditions and marvelous scenic 
interest. 

“It is thus described by Lippincott in the 21st annual report of the 
United States Geological Survey: 

“ ‘The valley proper is about three and one-half miles long and of 
a width varying from one-quarter to three quarters of a mile. The rugged 
granite walls, crowned with domes, towers, spires and battlements, seem 
to rise almost perpendicular upon all sides to a height of two thousand 
five hundred feet above this beautiful emerald meadow. ’ 

‘ 1 The Act of October 1, 1890, makes it obligatory upon the Secretary 
of the Interior to preserve and retain the ‘natural curiosities and wonders’ 
in the park in their ‘natural condition.’ This provision of the Act which 
established the park remains in full force, not having been repealed or 
modified by the Act under which this application is made nor by any other 
legislation. 

“It is contended that the appropriation of Lake Eleanor and Hetch 
Hetchy Valley for great reservoirs for the proposed storage of water would 
enhance rather than detract from their natural beauty, but this is not 


130 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


material in view of the law which commands the Secretary of the Interior 
to preserve and. retain them in their natural condition if they are ‘natural 
curiosities. ’ 

“There may be a difference of opinion as to what natural objects 
may be justly considered as being within the meaning of this provision 
of the law, but there can be no doubt about the duty of the Secretary of 
the Interior if, in his judgment, they are such natural curiosities or natural 
wonders as contemplated by the Act. 

“If natural scenic attractions of the grade and character of Lake 
Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy Valley are not of the class which the law com¬ 
mands the Secretary to preserve and retain in their natural condition, it 
would seem difficult to find any in the park that are, unless it be the 
Yosemite Valley itself. In the absence of the clearest expression to the 
contrary, it is inconceivable that it was intended by the Act of February, 
15, 1901, to confer any authority to be exercised for the subversion of those 
natural conditions which are essential to the very purposes for which the 
park was established. 

“Presumably the Yosemite National Park was created such by law 
because of the natural objects, of varying degrees of scenic importance, 
located within its boundaries, inclusive alike of its beautiful small lakes, 
like Eleanor, and its majestic wonders, like Hetch Hetchy and Yosemite 
Valley. It is the aggregation of such natural scenic features that makes 
the Yosemite Park a wonderland which the Congress of the United States 
sought by law to preserve for all coming time as nearly as practicable in 
the condition fashioned by the hand of the Creator—a worthy object of 
national pride and a source of healthful pleasure and rest for the thousands 
of people who may annually sojourn there during the heated months. 

“Having in view the ends for which the park was established and 
the law which clearly defines my duty in the premises, I am constrained 
to deny the application. You will so advise the parties interested, fur¬ 
nishing them each a copy of this communication. All papers in the case 
are herewith returned. ’ ’ 

In my annual report to you of the operations of this Department for 
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1903, in discussing the Act of February 15, 
1901, entitled “An Act relating to rights of way through certain parks, 
reservations and other public lands” (30 Stat. 790), I stated that: 

“Several applications have been presented under this act for pre¬ 
liminary surveys in the park, with a view to the manufacture of electric 
power for industrial purposes, and the construction of reservoirs for the 
storage of water for domestic and irrigation uses. 

“These have been given a careful consideration and refused in all 
cases where, in my judgment, the facts did not warrant a finding as 
required by the Act, ‘that the same is not incompatible with the public 
interest/ and also where the proposed enterprise necessarily involved the 
appropriation of private property in the park (the owner or owners not 
having consented thereto), or the violation of the Act of October 1, 1890, 
(26 Stat. 650), creating the park, especially the provision that directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to make regulations for the retention in their 
natural condition of all * * * natural curiosities or wonders within 

said reservation/ 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


131 


The provisions of this act, and those of the act under which these 
applications were made, are in no respect repugnant to each other, and 
I have, therefore, regarded it as obligatory upon the Department to deny 
such applications when the permits desired were for a purpose, however 
meritorious, inconsistent with the former act. ’ ’ 

In my annual report for 1904, I again referred to the matter in the 
following terms: 

“By Act of Congress approved February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. L. 790), 
the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and emp3wered to grant rights 
of way in the national parks and reservations for telephone and telegraph 
purposes, and for water conduits, reservoirs for irrigation, mining or 
quarrying, manufacturing, or other purposes. No applications for privileges 
in Fosemite National Park under this statute were presented during the 
year. The policy of the Department regarding cases arising in these parks, 
as stated in my latest annual report (p. 157), is to refuse the application 
in all cases where, in my judgment, the facts did not warrant a finding, 
as required by the act, ‘that the same is not incompatible with the public 
interest, ’ and also where the proposed enterprise necessarily involved the 
appropriation of private property in the park (the owner or owners not 
having consented thereto), or the violation of the act of October 1, 1890 
(26 Stat. L. 650), creating the park, especially the provision which directs 
the Secretary of the Interior to make regulations ‘for the retention in 
their natural condition of all * * * natural curiosities or wonders 

within said reservation. ’ ’ ’ 

On February 5, 1904, Senate Bill 4134 was introduced, granting to 
the City and County of San Francisco, for water supply purposes, the 
use of certain lands in a forest reservation in the State of California, 
which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. The sites described 
in this bill are substantially the same as those sought to be obtained in 
the Yosemite National Park by the City of San Francisco at the hearing 
hereinbefore mentioned. This bill has never been referred to this De¬ 
partment for report, and, so far as I am able to ascertain, no report thereon 
has been submitted to the Senate. 

Answering your interrogatories, therefore, in the order in which pro¬ 
pounded, I have the honor to state: 

First: That in my judgment it would not be proper at this time to 
grant the City of San Francisco the use of Lake Eleanor as a reservoir 
site, and all rights of way for diversion canals thereto, for the reason, as 
stated in my decision hereinbefore quoted, that such privilege could not 
be granted without further legislation by Congress; and, furthermore, that 
if no such objection were pertinent, the principal dam site at Lake Eleanor 
is on patented lands, and the owners thereof have acquired a property 
interest in the waters of the lake, and the portion of the Upper Tuolumne 
River, which crosses their patented lands, and it is doubtful, to say the 
least, whether any privilege granted by this Department to the City of 
San Francisco involving the use of those patented lands would be effective. 

Second: As to why it would not be proper to grant to San Fran¬ 
cisco the right of way for diversion canals from the Tuolumne River 
below Cherry Creek, when requested, it may be stated that this proposition 
has not heretofore been presented to the Department, and I am not prepared 
at this time to make definite reply thereto. As a matter of information, 


132 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


it may be stated that the portion of the Tuolumne River to which doubtless 
your inquiry relates, runs through portions of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, Town¬ 
ship 1 South, Range 19 East, which were excluded from the Yosemite 
National Park by the Act of Congress approved February 7, 1905, and 
included in the Sierra Forest Reserve. A formal application, therefore, for 
privileges as to the portion of the river above described would come up 
for my consideration, if presented to the Commissioner of the General 
Land Office in accordance with the regulations prescribed July 8, 1901, 
under the Act of February 15, 1901, supra. 

Third: “Why would it not be proper to hold the Heteh Hetchy Valley 
and Tuolumne Meadow sites for the joint use of the Turlock and Modesto 
Irrigation Districts, and the City of San Francisco and other municipalities 
in its neighborhood, when it is shown that they are required for the use 
of either or both of the applicants ?’’ 

As to the Hetch Hetchy Valley, I have heretofore stated that, in 
my judgment, this wonder of nature could not be used for reservoir 
purposes except through further legislation by Congress; aside from the 
fact that a large part of this valley embraces patented lands, and as to 
any reservation of these as a reservoir site, such reservation would be 
ineffective. 

Regarding the Tuolumne Meadows reservoir site, I am not able to 
identify it from such description. Indeed, as a matter of fact, it may be 
stated that neither Hetch Hetchy Valley nor Lake Eleanor has been set 
apart as a reservoir site by this Department; and although such action 
has been recommended by the Director of the Geological Survey, it has 
not received my approval. 

Under existing law, and the condition in the Park, I do not see what 
good end would be subserved by specially setting aside reservoir sites 
on the Government lands in the Yosemite National Park. All the lands 
which can be reserved as reservoir sites are already reserved for park 
purposes; and any application for a right of way over the park lands, look¬ 
ing to the utilization of waters from reservoirs to be hereafter established, 
would be very carefully scrutinized by the Department before any final 
action thereon; so that, as a matter of fact, the interests of the Turlock 
and Modesto Irrigation Districts are very fully protected at the present 
time, so far as they are dependent upon waters from the rivers in the 
Yosemite National Park. 

There is hereto appended a copy of the report of the Yosemite Paik 
Commission, appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Sundry Civil 
Act of April 28, 1904, to examine into the conditions and situations in the 
Yosemite National Park, and report what portions thereof are not necessary 
for park purposes, in which will be found a map (marked “No. 1”), show¬ 
ing the existing boundaries of the park and the lands excluded therefrom 
and attached to the Sierra Forest Reserve. There will also be found in 
said report a map (marked “No. 2”), in which are shown the patented 
lands in and around Lake Eleanor, as well as the Hetch Hetchy Valley, 
both of which places have been suggested as reservations for reservoir 
sites. 

Very respectfully submitted, 

(Signed) E. A. HITCHCOCK, 

Secretary. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


133 


Supporting; Opinion of the Hon., the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor, to the President. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, March 1, 1905. 

The President: 

In the matter of the application of the City of San Francisco for 
permission to obtain its water supply from the Yosemite National Park, 
I have the honor to say: 

• The tract of land, comprising what is popularly known as “Yosemite 
National Park,” was withdrawn from settlement and set apart as “reserved 
forest lands 7 ’ by the Act of October 1, 1890. This act placed the reserva¬ 
tion under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior and 
charged him with the duty of making regulations to “provide for the 
preservation from injury of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, 
or wonders with said reservation, and their retention in their natural 
condition.” 

In this connection it is to be observed that this tract of land was 
referred to in this act as “reserved forest lands” and “reservations.” 
The term “Yosemite National Park” was not used and there was no 
express declaration that the reservation was for the purpose of a park. It 
was, however, incidentally referred to as “Yosemite National Park” in 
the Act of February 15, 1901. That the tract in question “shall hereafter 
be known as the ‘Yosemite National Park’ ” was first declared in the 
Act of February 7, 1905. 

The authority of the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use of 
rights of way was originally limited to those extending through public 
lands, as distinguished from reservations and parks. But by the Act of 
February 15, 1901, he was authorized to extend these permits to forest 
and other reservations, and the Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant Na¬ 
tional Parks. This act, which is the measure of his authority in this partic¬ 
ular, empowers him to permit the use of rights of way for the purpose, 
inter alia, of supplying water for domestic, public or any other beneficial 
use, and for irrigation. It expressly provides, however, that such permits 
shall be allowed only upon the approval of the chief officer of the Depart¬ 
ment under whose supervision such park or reservation falls ‘ ‘ and upon 
a finding by him that the same is not incompatible with the public interest.” 

The manifest purpose of the original act was to set apart and main¬ 
tain the reservation in its natural condition. The object of the subsequent 
act was to permit such uses as would not interfere with the original pur¬ 
pose of the reservation. Thus, while the Secretary of the Interior is 
vested with exclusive control of the reservation, his authority to grant 
permits for the use of rights of way is limited to such uses as are not 
incompatible with the public interest. Any use which necessitates a 
change or alteration of the natural curiosities or wonders of the park is 
clearly incompatible with the public interest as expressed in the original 
act. To grant permits for uses which would so affect the reservation 
would defeat the purpose and nullify the effect of the law creating it. 


134 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


That Congress did not intend to authorize permits for uses which would 
permanently alter the natural condition of the park is clearly indicated 
by that clause in the act which provides: “that any permission given by 
the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of this act may be 
revoked by him or his successor in his discretion, and shall not be held 
to confer any right or easement, or interest in, to, or over any public 
land, reservation or park. ’ ’ 

It is manifest that at best the law only authorizes the granting of 
a mere license, revocable at the will of the Secretary. In the case under 
consideration, even if the Secretary concluded that it would not be incom¬ 
patible with the public interest to permit the use of the park for the pur¬ 
poses proposed, it is highly improbable that the City of San Francisco would 
expend $39,000,000 in availing itself of privileges dependent wholly on a 
concession which might be terminated at any time. 

Further than this it seems to me to be a -wise policy to refuse permits 
for uses which will in any wise encroach upon the natural wonders or 
scenic properties of this reservation. If it should conclusively appear in 
this or any other case that the use of a right of way through the reserva¬ 
tion is absolutely necessary to supply the surrounding country or neigh¬ 
boring communities with water for irrigation or domestic consumption, 
the legislative, and not the administrative, branch of the Government 
should be appealed to for assistance. As the law now stands, permission 
to use the reservation for purposes which will permanently change its 
natural conditions may be granted only by Congress. 

During the present session of Congress there was introduced in the 
House a bill to grant to the City of San Francisco the use of lands and 
rights of way, substantially the same as those sought in the application 
now under consideration. The Committee on Public Lands, to which the 
bill was referred, very recently laid it on the table by unanimous vote. 
The Senate Committee on Public Lands has taken no action with reference 
to Senate bill 4134, introduced on February 5, 1904, which is referred to 
by the Secretary of the Interior. 

In view of the able consideration which the Secretary of the Interior 
has given this question in his letter of February 20, 1905, it is needless 
for me to do more than direct attention to the points above referred to 
and concur in the conclusions reached by him. These conclusions, in my 
judgment, are clearly warranted from the facts and justified by the law. 

Very respectfully submitted, 

(Signed) V. H. METCALF, 

Secretary. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


135 


PETITION FOR REVIEW 
By the City and County of San Francisco. 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF 
JAMES D. PHELAN 

For Rights of Way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor, within the 

Yosemite National Park. 

FRANKLIN K. LANE, City Attorney. 

The President: , 

In the matter of the application of San Francisco for reservoir rights 
of way in Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor, California, as a source 
ot domestic water supply, you have placed in my hands copies of the 
denial of these rights by the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, and of the 
opinion thereon of the Hon. Secretary of Commerce and Labor; and have 
requested that the views entertained by me, on behalf of San Francisco, 
be submitted in form to be referred to the Hon. Attorney-General of the 
United States. 

For this purpose a brief review of the situation and facts is herein 
embodied: 

THE SITUATION AND FACTS. 

The Charter of San Francisco, in force since January 8, 1900, imposes 
upon its legislative and executive officers the obligation to submit proposi¬ 
tions for the acquisition of a municipal wafer supply. (Article XII, p. 124.) 
In obedience to this requirement, these officials caused the existing and 
all available sources to be examined in 1901, and an exhaustive study to 
be made of the present and future needs of the city with a view of meeting 
these demands from the purest and most abundant source available. 

EXISTING SUPPLIES INADEQUATE AND FROM NEARBY SOURCES 

SUBJECT TO POLLUTION. 

The existing supply is furnished by the Spring Valley Water Com¬ 
pany, a corporation practically enjoying a monopoly, its sources are within 
the city and county and in the immediately adjoining counties. Being in 
and near centers of population and human activities they are subject to 
increasing pollution; one source has had to be abandoned from this cause, 
and another is recognized as bordering near the limit of safety. As at 
present developed, the supply is admitted to be inadequate. The daily 
consumption in 1902 was between 28,000,000 and 30,000,000 gallons. This 
consumption increased to 35,000,000 in 1905; and, as estimated by Mr. F. P. 
Stearns, Chief Engineer of the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board 
of Massachusetts (as expert for the plaintiff in the suits of the Spring 
Valley Water Co. vs. San Francisco, now pending), this demand will be 
37,000,000 gallons daily in 1906; 45,000,000 gallons daily in 1910; and 
90,000,000 gallons daily in 1930. (See abstract of Mr. Steams’ testimony. 
Appendix C, herewith submitted.) 

WATER COMPANY ALLEGES ITS NEAR-BY SOURCES ARE 

ADEQUATE. 

The company furnishing this necessity alleges that this increase can 
be developed from near-by sources claimed to be owned by it; and that 




136 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


the cost of adding the 10,000,000 gallons per day to meet the requirements 
of 1906 will be $11,440,000, exclusive of the cost of a service reservoir. 
This expenditure will have to be met by additional expenditures after 1910. 
(See Appendix C.) All near-by sources are subject to the serious objection 
that the catchment areas, being in or near centers of population and human 
activities, are becoming more and more contaminated. It is alleged on 
the part of the Spring Valley Water Company that its supplies are or can 
be subjected to a process termed 11 natural filtration,” which consists of 
passing the water through natural beds of coarse gravel-where it dissolves 

such mineral constituents as this so-called “ natural filtration” may permit. 

% 

SALE OF PRESENT SUPPLIES SOLICITED BY THE CITY BUT 
AVOIDED BY SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY. 

The Charter requires that, before the construction of independent 
utilities, the sale of existing utilities to the city must be solicited. Such 
solicitations were repeatedly made for water works, but the company 
enjoying a monopoly of this necessity either technically evaded or ignored 
these solicitations. Previous negotiations with the purpose of acquiring 
its water supply have been opened by the city from time to time since 1871. 

WASTE FLOOD WATERS OF TUOLUMNE RIVER SELECTED BY 

THE CITY. 

Realizing these conditions, and, after exhaustive studies of the present 
and all available sources the city of San Francisco, through its proper 
officers, selected, surveyed, filed upon and made application for the reservoir 
rights of way in the Hetch Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor, which lie 
within the reservation known as Yosemite National Park. These reservoir 
sites were recognized and surveyed as such by the United States Geological 
Survey, in 1891, and the survey filings and application were made in 
conformity with the law of February 15, 1901, and with the published 
rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior governing in 
such matters. 

REASONS FOR THIS SELECTION. 

This source was recognized as the most available for the following 
reasons:— 

(1) Abundance; 

(2) Purity and impossibility of future contamination; 

(3) Its utilization involves only the use of waste flood waters beyond 
the ultimate demands of all other dependent industries; 

(4) All other sources are inferior to this in purity and are more 
or less encumbered with “prior rights” complicating their utilization. 

NO PROVISION IN LAW FOR AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURVEYS. 

Authority to make these surveys was not asked of the Hon. Secretary 
for the reason that no requirement to this effect was found, neither in 

r ' 

the law, nor in the regulations issued by the Department of the Interior. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


I n -» 

O i 

Moreover, it was essential to move circumspectly on the part of the city, 
in order to prevent private parties and corporations, speculatively inclined 
and more mobile than city authorities acting under prescribed and restrict¬ 
ing laws, from forestalling the city’s action. The wisdom of this apparently 
surreptitious action on the part of the city has been made manifest by 
the rapid and universal tilings on all reservoirs and water rights and 
purchases of holdings in Tuolumne river drainage basin since it became 
known that the city authorities looked to its waste flood waters as a source 
of supply. These appear to be efforts to secure control of the only remain¬ 
ing possible sources of public water in the State for purposes of legalized 
blackmail rather than legitimate applications for public resources which 
they wish to acquire and exploit. 

The city’s application by reason of conditions heretofore set forth* 
were made in the name of the Mayor, who subsequently transferred them 
to the city. 

DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS. 

These applications were formally denied by the Honorable Secretary 
of the Interior on January 20, 1903. Subsequently a petition for rehearing 
was granted, and the application again denied on December 22, 1903. 

ACTION OF CITY AND COUNTY ATTORNEY. 

The pressing necessities of the city induced the City and County 
Attorney to personally present the matter to the President in February, 
1905, who secured the opinions of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior 
and the confirmatory opinion of the Honorable Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor. (Submitted as Appendices A and B.) In June, 1905, the City and 
County Attorney commissioned the undersigned to again request the Presi¬ 
dent’s attention to the pressing needs of San Francisco for additional 
water supplies, and on the 23rd of that month I was accorded the honor 
of a hearing. You then placed in my hands the letters from the Honorable 
Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce and Labor, as heretofore 
referred to. 

OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING APPLICATIONS ANSWERED. 

The Honorable Secretaries raise the following objections to the granting 
of these rights, which I shall endeavor to meet:— 

I. 

“The project contemplates an estimated expenditure of about $39,- 
000,000.00, which, however, has never been approved by vote of the people 
of the city.” 

In order to be approved by vote of the people of the city a definite 
proposition has to be submitted by the Board of Supervisors in accordance 
with the legal provisions for a bond issue. All steps taken in this matter 
were in an endeavor to submit such a proposition for their approval. It 

*See page 135 of Petition for Review, Franklin K. Lane, Esq., City 

• , ' '. *-*.*■■■ ' t 

Attorney. 




138 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


is manifest that no definiteness could be given to the use of the waste 
flood waters of the Tuolumne River as a source, either to re-enforce exist¬ 
ing supplies or otherwise, unless storage areas could be made available. 
Should the application be granted and the people of the city should with¬ 
hold their approval of its development the rights would simply lapse. 
But after the selection of the waste flood waters of Tuolumne River as a 
source furnishing, in the opinion of the city authorities, the most abundant 
and unpollutable water, no definite proposition could be submitted unless 
the rights asked for were approved. The denial of these rights effectually 
estopped any opportunity to submit the proposition for the people’s ap¬ 
proval. 

II. 

“It appears that for more than forty years the City of San Francisco 
has been supplied water by the Spring Valley Water Company, a private 
corporation; that, under existing law, the water rates to consumers are 
determined by the City itself; that the quality of the water is good and 
admitted to be within the limits of the standard of potability; and that 
the Company has the ability to increase the supply to adequately meet 
the needs of the City almost indefinitely.” 

III. 

“The City asserts, nevertheless, that the waters it seeks to store at 
Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetcliy Valley are better and that it desires to 
acquire and control its own water supply, which it is empowered to do 
under the provisions of its present charter. ’ ’ 

PRESENT SUPPLY. 

The city has been supplied since 1862 by the existing corporation, 
the Spring Valley Water Company, or its immediate predecessor, the Spring 
Valley Water Works. One of its several sources, Lobos Creek, has already 
been abandoned by reason of encroaching pollution. Another, Lake Merced, 
despite extraordinary precaution, is of very doubtful character and will 
be abandoned from the same cause in the very near future as unfit for 
domestic use. 

FIXING RATES FOR WATER, 

The rates are fixed by the Board of Supervisors in harmony with con¬ 
stitutional and legal provisions intended to hold the revenue within reason¬ 
able limits of profit upon the actual cost of the works in use and the 
necessary expenses incident to administration, maintenance and operation. 
These rates-have frequently been the cause of disagreements between the 
city authorities and the water company; numerous and expensive suits are 
the result, several of which are now in progress. 

QUALITY AND STANDARD OF PURITY OF PRESENT AND 

FUTURE SUPPLY. 

The water furnished by the company is generally within the limits 
of potability, but far below the standard which the city aims to secure 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


139 


from the waste flood waters of Tuolumne River, which are, and must for¬ 
ever remain, unpollutable from the ordinary causes which have made, and 
are yet making, the waters of most American cities unfit for domestic use. 
The city authorities admit that they are endeavoring to attain and 
establish the highest ancient or modern standard of purity in the selection 
of an uninhabitable and uncultivated source; and feel justified in so doing 
when studying the condition of water supplies of Washington, Philadelphia, 
New York, Boston, Chicago and other large American cities and note the 
expenditures being made to secure an amelioration of the sickness and 
death due to the growing pollution of their sources and to meet growing 
demands. This high standard has received the endorsement of Mr. F. P. 
Stearns, Chief Engineer of the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board 
of Massachusetts. In his testimony for the plaintiff in cases now pending 
in the United States Circuit Court of California (Spring Valley Water 
Works vs. City and County of San Francisco, No. 13,528, and S. V. W. Co. 
vs. City and County of San Francisco, No. 13,395, Vol. 6, pp. 4213 and 4214), 
he says: '‘The ideal condition is a water shed free from inhabitants and 
not cultivated or used for grazing. ” This ideal condition is presented by 
the source selected by the city authorities and asked for in the application 
herein considered, and does not obtain in any one of the sources now used 
to supply the city by the plaintiff in the above cited cases, nor in any 
other source available. Moreover, contaminating influences of these present 
sources are increasing and must continue to increase, but are forever 
impossible in the sources selected by the city authorities. Surely if public 
interests are to be considered, the attainment of such an ideal water 
supply, for the homes of successive generations of mothers and children, 
is not incompatible with public interests. 

IV. 

‘ ‘ As viewed, however, by the Department, the application is con¬ 
fronted by legal embarrassments which appear to be surmountable only 
by the exercise of the legislative power of the Government. * * * 

V. 

“The Act of October 1, 1890, makes it obligatory upon the Secretary 
of the Interior to preserve and retain the ‘natural curiosities and wonders ’ 
iji the Park in their ‘natural condition .’ This provision of the act which 
established the Park remains in full force, not having been repealed or 
modified by the Act under which this application is made nor by any 
other legislation.” 

It is maintained that the law of February 15th, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 790), 
under which these applications were made, in so far as it relates to the 
granting of the rights specifically provided for therein in the “Yosemite, 
Sequoia and General Grant National Parks, California,” pro tanto nullifies 
and supplants the restrictive provisions of the previous law of October 
1, 1890. (26 Stat. L., 650.) 

The prime question then is:— 

Does the act of February 15th, 1901, modify the Act of October 1, 1890, 
sufficiently to justify the granting of those privileges specified in the later 
act, although the enjoyment of these privileges may slightly modify certain 


140 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


natural features existing in these reservations; providing that such grant 
is “not incompatible with public interest”? 

LAKES AND MEADOWS NOT “NATURAL CURIOSITIES NOR WON¬ 
DERS,” BUT COMMON FEATURES IN 
MOUNTAINOUS REGIONS. 

First, would the conversion of a small lake into one of greater dimen¬ 
sions be an act incompatible with the public interest concerned in visiting 
these rugged regions? 

Second, is a meadow, however green, to be regarded as a “natural 
curiosity or wonder”? 

Beautiful meadows have been created by the hand of man since the 
dawn of history. The massive precipices which enclose the grand canyon 
of the Tuolumne aggregate scores of miles in length and more than half 
a mile in height. Whatever might be the agencies these could hardly be 
scarred by the hand of man. These vast battlements constitute the 
“natural curiosities and wonders” of this region and not the emerald 
meadows and little lakes which are common to most mountain regions as 
well as in this. When these common and minor features are modified (but 
rendered none the less attractive to the few hardy mountaineers who reach 
the regions in summer) to furnish an element of health to the homes of 
millions for all time, the public interests are best served by the modification. 

MEANING IN THIS CASE OF “PUBLIC INTEREST.” 

It is a principle of statutory construction that words should be given 
their broad and natural meaning unless such meaning would make the law 
absurd or run counter to its evident intention. If, in the act of October 1, 
1890, the words “public interest” had been used they would naturally 
be connected with the park and the purpose for which it was created; but, 
being used in the act of February 15, 1901, the words must naturally refer 
primarily to the public interest in the granting and exercise of the privi¬ 
leges therein provided for. 

It would be practically impossible to grant any reservoir right of way 
within these national parks without altering the natural condition of cer¬ 
tain minor features therein. Hence, it must be that the act of February 15; 
1901, was intended by Congress to modify the act of October 1, 1890, by 
permitting the Hon. Secretary to grant rights of way even when the grant 
affects natural conditions within these parks. It is, therefore, held that 
a just construction of the words 11 not incompatible with the public inter¬ 
est, ” must connect them up with the interest which the public feels or 
the good which it would obtain from the right of way as set over against 
the public interest in the parks and these minor natural features, which 
must necessarily be modified to a slight extent if the provisions of this 
law mean anything. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


141 


Reply to the Supporting Opinion of Hon. Secretary 

of Commerce and Labor. 

In support of this proposition the opinion of the Hon. Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor in his letter to you of March 1st, 1905, is cited: 

‘ 1 The authority of the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use of 
rights of way was originally limited to those extending through public 
lands, as distinguished from reservations and parks. But by the Act of 
February 15, 1901, he was authorized to extend these permits to forest and 
other reservations, and the Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National 
Parks. This act, which is the measure of his authority in this particular, 
empowers him to permit the use of rights of way for the purpose, inter 
alia, of supplying water for domestic, public or any other beneficial use, 
and for irrigation. It expressly provides, however, that such permits 
shall be allowed only upon the approval of the chief officer of the Depart¬ 
ment under whose supervision such park or reservation falls ‘and upon a 
finding by him that the same is not incompatible with public interest.” 

The legal right of the Hon. Secretary to exercise his discretion in 
determining such public interest is undoubted, and therefore his refusal to 
grant the reservoir right, being founded, as it is, upon a denial of any such 
legal right (not upon a claim that the grant would be incompatible with 
public interest) can not be maintained and the matter must be considered 
in the aspect suggested above. 

EXISTING LAW ADEQUATE. 

It is therefore maintained on the part of the city that the law of 
February 15, 1901, under which this application for reservoir rights of 
way was made, in so far as it relates to the rights and privileges specifically 
provided for therein “Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National 
Parks, California * * *” nullified the restrictive and prohibitory pro¬ 
visions of the previous law of October 1st, 1890, and that legal power 
now rests with the Hon. Secretary of the Interior to make the grants 
applied for, without additional action by the legislative power of the 
government. 

VI. 

The Hon. Secretary further says: 

11 it is proposed to convert Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy Valley, 
respectively, into reservoirs for the storage of a water supply for the city. 
Both are admitted scenic features of the Yosemite National Park. Lake 
Eleanor is located high up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains at an elevation 
of 4,700 feet and is one of the crystal clear lakes jwhich abound in the 
Park and are noted for their beauty. Hetch Hetchy Valley is widely 
known for its wonderful natural conditions and marvelous scenic interests. 

“It is thus described by Lippincott, in the 21st annual report of the 
United States Geological Survey: 

i < Tke valley proper is about three and one-half miles long and of a 
width varying from one-quarter to three-quarters of a mile. The rugged 
granite walls, crowned with domes, towers, spires and battlements, seem 


142 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


to rise almost perpendicular upon all sides to a height of two thousand five 
hundred feet above this beautiful emerald meadow. ’ ’ ’ 

LAKES AND MEADOWS MINOR AND COMMON FEATURES. 

Lake Eleanor, like similar bodies of water, is already a reservoir; 
its level can not readily be lowered below the plane of its low-water stage. 
To convert it into a larger lake or reservoir, constant in size during the 
summer months when mountaineers can reach the region, would in no way 
mar its beauty and scenic attractions. 

LAKE TAHOE USED FOR LOWER USE. 

The enlargement of Lake Tahoe for reservoir purposes and the utiliza¬ 
tion of its stored waters for irrigation are now being perfected by the 
United States Geological Survey. This lake is by far the grandest and 
most accessible of the mountain lakes of North America. Its natural con¬ 
ditions, although slightly modified by this use, are in no way interfered 
with so far as its scenic grandeurs are concerned. 

USE OF HETCH HETCHY AND LAKE ELEANOR FOR 

HIGHEST PURPOSE. 

Hetch Hetchy reservoir site occupies but a small portion of the length 
of Tuolumne Canyon. The canyon walls four miles above the upper end 
of this reservoir site are far grander and more impressive than near by. 

EFFECT OF USING THESE FOR RESERVOIRS. 

The conversion of the low lying meadow occupying a small portion 
of this canyon, into a lake or reservoir 175 feet deep, can not in any way 
effect the scores of miles of canyon walls one-half to three-quarters of a 
mile high and which constitute the natural wmnders of this part of the 
Reservation. Nor can the creation of such a lake seriously mar the scenic 
features of the 1500 square miles of rugged mountain scenery which con- 
sitiute the Park. Even if it be admitted that a meadow is a “ natural 
curiosity or wonder,” a lake of clear crystal water with higher, steeper, 
rock-bound sides and larger than any other in the Yosemite National Park, 
will be none the less attractive. Surely if Lake Tahoe can be utilized as a 
reservoir to supply irrigation, Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor can be 
utilized for the higher purpose of domestic water supply. 

In support of the views of the Honorable Secretary regarding the 
Lake Eleanor application, he says: 

* * * “That if no such objection were pertinent, the principal 

dam site at Lake Eleanor is on patented lands, and the owners thereof 
have acquired a property interest in the waters of the lake, and the portion 
of the Upper Tuolumne river which crosses their patented lands, and it is 
doubtful, to say the least, whether any privilege granted by this Department 
to the City of San Francisco involving the use of those patented lands 
would be effective. ’ ’ 

The Honorable Secretary must be in slight error in this statement, for 
the site of the dam designed by the city is on vacant land, said site being 
situated on the south y 2 of the N. W. *4 of Section 3, T. 1 N., R. 19 E., Mt. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


143 


D. B. & M., Cal. Moreover, no portion of Tuolumne River is within four 
(4) miles of the dam site in question nor of the proposed Lake Eleanor 
reservoir. 

The right of eminent domain rests with the people of the State of 
California, and can be appealed to in the acquisition of lands and rights 
other than public, which are essential to the domestic water supply of 
municipalities organized under its constitution and laws. 

LAW OF 1890 AND 1901 COMPARED. 

The provisions of the two laws which bear upon this application are 
as follows: 

Act of Oct. 1st, 1890 (26 Stat. at 
L., 651): 

Section 2. That said reservation 
shall be under the exclusive control 
of the Secretary of the Interior, 
whose duty it shall be, as soon as 
practicable, to make and publish such 
rules and regulations as he may deem 
necessary or proper for the care and 
management of the same. 

Such regulations shall provide for 
the preservation from injury of all 
timber, mineral deposits, natural 
curiosities or wonders within said 
reservation, and their retention in 
their natural condition. * * * 

It will be observed that the provisions of the prior act are rigidly 

prohibitive; and forbid absolutely the use of lakes or meadows as reser¬ 
voirs should these common features of most mountain landscapes be inter¬ 
preted to be “ natural curiosities or wonders. ’ ’ But af t«r an experience of 
over ten years with the former act, the law of February 15, 1901, was 
enacted. 

USE OF STORED WASTE WATERS MADE POSSIBLE BY LATER LAW. 

This law specifies, in distinct terms, that certain usages may be made 
of water, granting the privilege of storing the same in, and conducting it 
through, the public reservation and park lands in question. If it be held 
that the storing of water in localities suited by nature for such purpose and 
use, destroys the meadow or enlarges the lake occupying such location, and 
thereby destroys “natural curiosities or wonders,” then the later law is 
senseless and meaningless; or, these common features of mountainous coun¬ 
tries are not to be construed as “ natural curiosities or wonders,’ ’ to be 

retained “in their natural condition.” 

If the law of February 15th, 1901, intended that low-lying meadows, 
lakes or valleys should be retained “in their natural condition” and not 
be utilized as reservoirs, what meaning can be given to the words, “That 
the Secretary of the Interior be authorized and empowered, under general 
regulations to be fixed by him, to permit the use of rights of way through 
the public lands * * * Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National 

Parks, California, for * * * canals * * * and reservoirs for * * * 
the supplying of water for domestic, public or any other beneficial uses 


Act of Feb. 15, 1901 (31 Stat. at 
L., 790): 

That the Secretary of the Interior 
be authorized and empowered, under 
general regulations to be fixed by 
him, to permit the use of rights of 
way through the public lands * * 

Yosemite, Sequoia and General 
Grant National Parks, California, for 
* * * canals * * * and res¬ 
ervoirs for * * * the supplying of 

water for domestic, public or any 
other beneficial uses to the extent, 
etc., etc. 


144 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


to the extent, etc., etc.”? How can reservoirs be established over any 
area within the parks named and the same be retained “in their natural 
condition ’ 

What is this law put upon the statute books for, except to modify the 
rigid and inhibitory provisions of the previous law of October 1, 1890; and, 
to empower the Honorable Secretary of the Interior to do those acts and 
to execute those powers defined therein? Unless this be the case, this law 
may as well be stricken from the statutes. 

It can not be reasonably contended that the law of February 15th, 1901, 
contemplates the utilization of any other areas as reservoirs than those 
naturally suited for such use—namely, low valleys, meadows and lakes. 
At certain seasons the floor of Hetch Hetchy Valley is covered with water; 
it is proposed under the application to simply hold this water at a small 
fraction of the height of the encompassing precipices and to make of this 
emerald meadow a crystal clear lake of far greater beauty, and to use these 
crystal clear waters for the supply of the homes of successive generations 
of mothers and children. 

RULE OF ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT. 

The rule of action which the Honorable Secretary applies to the inter¬ 
pretation of the Acts of February 15, 1901, and of October 1, 1890, is as 
follows: 

“The provisions of this act, and those of the act under which these 
applications were made, are in no respect repugnant to each other, and I 
have, therefore, regarded it as obligatory upon the Department to deny 
such applications when the permits desired were for a purpose, however 
meritorious, inconsistent with the former act. ” 

It appears that it would be more in harmony with the principles of 
statutory construction if this rule of action were slightly modified so as 
to read: 

The provisions of this act (October 1, 1890) and those of the act under 
which these applications were made, are in some respects repugnant to each 
other, and it is therefore regarded as obligatory upon the Department to 
grant such applications when the permits desired are for purposes clearly 
within the provisions of, and consistent with, the later act. * 

INTERPRETATION OF LAW MAINTAINED ON THE PART OF 

SAN FRANCISCO. 

It is therefore maintained, on the part of San Francisco, that the laws 
in question are repugnant and inconsistent if common features such as 
meadows and small lakes are to be considered “natural curiosities or won¬ 
ders”; in which event the later law was intended to modify the inhibitory 
provisions of the prior one; if, on the other hand, these common features 
be not “natural curiosities or wonders ,” then the later law applies, without 
modifying or affecting the provisions of the prior law. 

It is therefore asked, on the part of San Francisco, that these common 
features be declared not to be “natural curiosities or wonders,” and that 
the application asked for be granted. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


145 


REVERSION OF PRIVILEGE NOT LIKELY. 

Should the city from any cause, fail, within reasonable time, to make 
proper use of these privileges, the same simlpy revert unused to the Gov¬ 
ernment. No fears may be entertained as to what amount the people of 
San Francisco will vote to get an abundant and forever unpollutable source 
of domestic water supply under their own control. As to the revocation of 
this privilege, it is hardly probable that so long as used for the purpose 
for which granted and without a decision from the highest tribunal that 
any official would take such a step—particularly in the face of the law 
of February 1st, 1905. 


Further Reply to Views of the Hon. Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor—Legal Powers of 
the Department of the Interior 
Correctly Defined by the 
Hon. Secretary. 

In reply to the views expressed by the Honorable Secretary of Com¬ 
merce and Labor, in his letter to the President, of March 1, 1905, attention 
is called to the opinion already cited that “the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior to permit the use of rights of way was originally limited to 
those extending through the public lands, as distinguished from reservations 
and parks. But by the Act of February 15, 1901, he was authorized to 
extend these permits to forest and other reservations, and the Yosemite, 
Sequoia and General Grant National Parks. This act, which is the measure 
of his authority in this particular, empowers him to permit the use of right 
of way for the purpose, inter alia, of supplying water for domestic, public, 
or any other beneficial use, and for irrigation. It expressly provides, etc. " 

The Honorable Secretar} 1 " continues: 

“Any use which necessitates a change or alteration of the natural 
curiosities or wonders of the park is clearly incompatible with the public 
interest as expressed in the original act. To grant permits for uses which 
would so affect the reservation would defeat the purpose and unllify the 
effect of the law creating it." 

LAW OF 1890 NOT THE MEASURE OF THE POWER OF THE 
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

The law of February 15, 1890, under which the reservation was created, 
is bv the above citation of the Honorable Secretary's opinion, not the 
measure of the authority of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, nor has 
it been shown that the storage of water in areas suited for such use, and 
as provided for in the subsequent act, would in any manner whatever 
“defeat the purpose and nullify the effect of the law creating" the 
reservation. 



146 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


REVOCATION OF PERMITS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN THE LAW. 

The Honorable Secretary of Commerce and Labor also interprets the 
intention of Congress in passing the act of February 15, 1901, as follows: 

‘ 1 That Congress did not intend to authorize permits for uses which would 
permanently alter the natural conditions of the park is clearly indicated 
by that clause in the act which provides: ‘that any permission given by 
the Secretary of the Interior under the provisions of this act may be 
revoked by him or his successor in his discretion, and shall not be held 
to confer any right or easement, or interest in, to, or over any public land, 
reservation, or park. ’ 

“It is manifest that at best the law only authorizes the granting of a 
mere license, revocable at the will of the Secretary. In the case under 
consideration, even if the Secretary concluded that it would not be incom¬ 
patible with the public interest to permit the use of the park for the pur¬ 
poses proposed it is highly improbable that the city of San Francisco would 
expend $39,000,000 in availing itself of privileges dependent wholly on a 
concession which might be terminated at any time. ’ ’ 

It does not appear to be the intent of this law that so long as the 
permits be used for the exclusive purpose for which granted that they 
should be revocable “at will” by the Secretary of the Interior. But that 
said permits shall be revocable in his discretion in case they “be held to 
confer any right or easement, or interest in, to, or over any public land, 
reservation or park. ’ ’ 

Particularly does this interpretation apply in the light of Section 4 
of the Act of February 1st, 1905. 

The Honorable Secretary seems to have overlooked this very recent 
provision of the law; and, to have slightly misinterpreted the intent of the 
above quotation from the law of February 15, 1901. . 

Should the application be granted and San Francisco devote any sum 
of money strictly in the development and utilization of the privileges con¬ 
ferred under this law, no officer would be justified in revoking the same in 
his discretion without a decision to this effect from the highest tribunal of 
our country. 

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OF 1901 BY THE HONORABLE 
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR IS CORRECT. 

According to the Honorable Secretary’s opinion the law of February 
15, 1901, is the measure of the authority to grant permits for the utilization 
of water, etc. To this extent, therefore, the “natural conditions” of the 
parks may be modified. The inhibitions previously imposed by the law 
of October 1, 1890, forbidding such modifications and even the cutting off 
of common timber, have been modified to permit the development and 
use of stored flood water. 

“As the law now stands, permission to use the reservation for pur¬ 
poses which will permanently change its natural conditions may be granted” 
by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior to the extent authorized by 
that act “which is the measure for his authority in this particular.” 

If, therefore, we accept the opinion of the Honorable Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor as correct, disagreeing only with the conclusion ex- 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


147 


pressed in the final paragraph of his letter, it appears that there is authority 
and warrant in the present law for the granting of the reservoir rights of 
way asked for by San Francisco. 

CONCLUSION. 

It is maintained on the part of San Francisco: 

(1) That the w*aste flood waters of Tuolumne River constitute the 
purest, most abundant and most available source of domestic supply. 

(2) That these waste flood waters are in excess of any possible future 

use. 

(3) That the law of February 15th, 1901, provides the authority and 
power necessary to grant the use of storage areas in National Parks in 
California, and such modifications of natural conditions within these park 
areas as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of said law; and, 
that it is the measure of the authority of the Honorable Secretary of the 
Interior in this particular. 

It is asked on behalf of San Francisco that the reservoir rights of way 
petitioned for be granted. 

Very respectfully submitted, 

MARSDEN MANSON. 

July 27th, 1905. 

APPENDIX C (Copy) 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 


October 28, 1905. 

The President: 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt by reference from you, 
of communication from Mr. Percy Y. Long, Attorney for the City of San 
Francisco, concerning the denial of the Secretary of the Interior of the 
application of the city for water rights on Lake Eleanor and the Tuolumne 
River within the Yosemite National Park. The city attempts to show that 
at this place is to be found its only feasible supply of fresh water sufficient 
to meet its present and immediately future necessities for city purposes. 

The Act of Congress of October 1, 1890, (26 Stat. 651), setting apart the 
lands included in the Yosemite National Park, provides, Section 2, as follows: 

Section 2: That said reservation shall be under the exclusive control 
of the Secretary of the Interior, whose duty it shall be, as soon as prac¬ 
ticable, to make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem 
necessary or proper for the care and management of the same. 

Such regulations shall provide for the preservation from injury of all 
timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities or wonders within said reser¬ 
vation, and their retention in their natural condition. 

By an Act of February 15, 1901 (31 Stat. 790), providing for rights 
of way through certain parks, it was provided: 

That the Secretary of the Interior be authorized and empowered, under 
general regulations to be fixed by him, to permit the use of rights of way 
through the public lands Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National 
Parks, California for * * * canals * * * and reservoirs for * * * 

the supplying of water for domestic, public or any beneficial uses. 


148 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


It appears that, acting in pursuance of the authority thus conferred 
upon him, the Secretary of the Interior, after careful consideration, includ¬ 
ing a rehearing granted at the request of the applicant, held as follows: 

Having in view the ends for which the Park was establishd and the 
law which clearly defines my duty in the premises, I am constrained to deny 
the application. 

I have carefully considered the language of the Act as above quoted 
and am clearly of the opinion that Congress thereby intended to vest in 
the Secretary a discretionary authority to grant or refuse applications of 
this kind. 

I would therefore respectfully suggest that, if you desire further con¬ 
sideration or different action, the matter may be taken up with the Secretary 
of the Interior. 

The enclosures of your letter are herewith returned. 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) M. D. PURDY, 

Acting Attorney-General. 


HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF SAN FRAN¬ 
CISCO FOR RESERVOIR SITES AND RIGHTS OF WAY 
IN THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK FOR 
DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY SOURCE 
(HETCH HETCHY PROJECT). 

HELD IN CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO BEFORE HON. JAMES RUDOLPH 
GARFIELD, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

EVENING OF JULY 24, 1907. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

This is a proceeding in which there was granted a hearing by Hon. 
James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary Department of the Interior, upon the 
application of the City of San Francisco, California, for certain reservoir 
sites and rights of way in the Yosemite National Park for use as a source 
of domestic water supply, commonly designated the San Francisco Hetch 
Hetchy project. 

Present and participating: 

Mayor Edward R. Taylor, 

Hon. James D. Phelan, 

Marsden Manson, C. E., 

Dr. A. A. D ’Ancona, 

J. D. Galloway, C. E., 

L. L. Dennett, Attorney-at-Law, 

P. J. Hazen, 

A. C. Boyle, C. E., 

Russell L. Dunn, C. E., 

C. N. Beal, 

John E. Bennett, Attorney-at-Law, and 
Hon. James Rudolph Garfield. 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


149 


Place: Office of Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, No. 32 Eddy 

street. 

Time: 8:40 until 11:10 p. m., July 24, 1907. 

Mayor E. R. Taylor: Gentlemen, please come to order. 

I have the pleasure of introducing to you Secretary Garfield, of the 
Interior Department of the United States, who is here for the purpose of 
hearing argument in the matter of the use of one of the reservations of 
the United States for the purpose of a reservoir. Mr. Manson, I understand, 
will present the argument in favor of that; and if the Secretary will so 
signify we will now hear from him. 

Mr. Garfield: Gentlemen, this matter was brought to my attention 
some weeks ago on an application to practically reopen the question as 
to whether or not the Interior Department would take any different action 
from that which has heretofore been taken; and I then said that while out 
here I would afford an opportunity to those who had made this application 
to present briefly such matters as they might desire. I wish that all papers 
be presented in the form of briefs with whatever exhibits in the way of 
maps or statements that are necessary to accompany them. I have gone 
over the papers fully that are on file in my office, and wish all possible 
information on this subject, that is, of course, of vital consequence to the 
people of your city. I wish you all to understand that the Government, 
so far as within its power, will be more than pleased if it can be of any 
assistance to you in any way in helping you out of the tremendous 
difficulties you are facing here at this time. Therefore I want the fullest 
and frankest discussion of all the questions involved in this proposition, 
to the end that we may be fully advised of all the facts concerning the 
requests that citizens of your city here may desire to make. 

Mayor Taylor: I am sure we appreciate that sentiment very much. 

Mr. Marsden Manson, C. E.: Mr. Secretary, your opening statement 
advises us that you are already familiar with the papers on file in the 
Department in this matter. 

When the new charter was adopted, which went into effect the 8th 
day of January, 1900, there was a provision in it requiring the city to 
look into the acquisition of a water supply. In obedience to that, there 
was made under the direction of the Board of Public Works, a very ex¬ 
haustive study of the various sources from which the city could be supplied. 
As you are aware, many of these sources are now and have been for many 
years in private hands. Our city is now and has been in the past supplied 
by a private company, to whom the privilege of supplying water has been 
left, the Spring Valley Water Company. 

That supply has proved itself inadequate, and it became apparent to 
those directing the city that not only would that supply be required in the 
future, but a very great increase was necessary, hence the examination 
extended over all projects in the successive attempts to determine the best 
outside source. Surveys were made of two unused reservoir sites lying within 
the limits of the Yosemite Reservation and in the drainage basin north of 
the Yosemite Park itself. The region is very accurately depicted from the 
U. S. Geological Surveys on this relief map (presents relief map of the 
Yosemite Reservation), which gives the area of the region, the positions of 
the reservoir sites applied for—one, known as the Iletch Hetchv, receiving 


150 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


452 square miles of drainage at that point (pointing to map), and the 
other, Lake Eleanor, receiving 84 square miles of drainage area at that 
point (pointing). 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): Do I understand that the entire watershed 
suggested in this plan here is within the present public domain? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. What portions of it are not? 

A. Which portions are outside? 

Q. Yes, sir; outside of the domain? 

A. A portion of both reservoirs are not in the domain; portions of the 
drainage area are in the Tuolumne Meadows. The Yosemite Valley lies 
as indicated here (pointing). 

Mr. Garfield: Proceed. 

Mr. Manson (resuming): The entire watershed area tributary to the 
Valley is 1,501 square miles, and the drainage area rises from the plain of 
the San Joaquin Valley up to summits of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
which are some thirteen thousand feet above sea level. No portion of the 
drainage area is habitable. No one has lived in this place in the winter 
time, except one man, who tried it one winter and his goat froze to death 
and he came very near following; the area is absolutely uninhabited. 

The surveys which were made and which I will present to you now 
(presents data)— 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): These are already on file with the De¬ 
partment. 

Mr. Manson: I do not think so; they were returned through the Land 
Office when your worthy predecessor denied the former application, in 
1903, and were burned in the destruction of the public records in this city 
in 1906. 

Mr. Garfield: I have seen some papers in Washington, but they may 
not be the same as these. 

Mr. James D. Phelan: Duplicates of those papers were filed in the 
Secretary’s office. 

Mr. Manson: I never heard of it; when were they filed? 

Mr. Phelan: I filed them there last month. 

Mr. Garfield: I thought I had seen them. Please proceed, Mr. Manson. 

(Resuming.) This map here (indicating) shows the sources from which 
the city can draw its water supply, the various areas of each, and the 
country, areas, to which they are tributary. 

The basis of this application is made upon a personal argument pre¬ 
sented by the speaker to the President of the United States through the 
kindness of Mr. Gifford Pinchot, who was requested that the views and 
position of the city might be presented in such form that they could be 
presented to the Attorney-General. The opinions differed as to whether 
or not the Secretary of Interior had the authority to grant the application 
of the city, and his denial was largely based upon the idea that additional 
legislation was necessary to its granting. Such legislation was prepared, 
introduced into Congress, but some way or other the matter died in com¬ 
mittee. The membership of that committee was unfortunate so far as the 
city’s interests were concerned, and it was never presented to Congress. 
In the meanwhile this argument (takes up printed pamphlet entitled or 
called Manson’s Brief to the President of the United States, Reviewing 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


151 


the Opinions of the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce and Labor) was 
prepared, was presented to the President, and by him transmitted to the 
office of the Attorney-General. That office rendered an opinion to the 
effect that the Secretary of the Interior had denied this but that the 
matter of granting it could be reheard. That opinion stated (reading): ‘‘I 
have carefully considered the language of the acts as above quoted, and 
am clearly of the opinion that Congress thereby intended to vest in the 
Secretary a discretionary authority to grant or refuse applications of this 
kind. ’ ’ 

(Resuming.) This was signed by the Acting Attorney-General, Mr. 
Purdy, and given by him to the Attorney-General. These papers I will 
send to you in the near future so as not to burden you with them now, sir. 

On this basis the city now appears before you and asks you to recon¬ 
sider the entire case; look into the case, bearing in mind that we do not 
claim one gallon of water now in use nor to which rights obtain, but simply 
the right to store extra seasonal or waste flood waters annually going to 
waste, doing damage in their flow towards the sea. That these waters 
be controlled and, in harmony with existing laws of this State, diverted 
for the use of supplying the city of San Francisco, city use, the highest use 
to which water can be applied. It is not an opportunity to divert waters 
now in use at all, although that statement has been persistently and 
repeatedly made; waters going to waste annually, and that must continue to 
go to waste not only when the two reservoirs that the city applies for have 
been constructed, and numerous other reservoirs, Tuolumne Meadows and 
the innumerable lakes are utilized for storage reservoirs,—when that vast 
utilization shall be made there will still necessarily go to waste by virtue 
of the nature of the discharge of the water courses, a large portion of the 
waters that the city asks the privilege of impounding. All the city asks is 
the right to store in these two reservoirs the waste flood waters, without 
depriving one single iota of an industry of one iota of the rights they 
have. No one would look upon those rights, Mr. Secretary, more sacredly 
than I would. It is not to deprive any user of water, but to store only the 
waters that are in excess of the combined capacities of the claims of those 
ditches even when the ditches as they stand, with their rights made, and with 
what they may claim, 2,500 second feet, are fully supplied. That storage 
can be put under the charge of officers of your own Department, and not one 
drop that is not in excess of the claims of the ditches will be taken. 

Mr. Garfield: Do I understand that when that has been done you claim 
there is still sufficient water left to supply the needs of the entire city of 
San Francisco? 

A. Yes, sir; more than enough. 

Mr. Garfield: I read your argument or brief that was presented at 
some meeting I do not now recall, in which the figures presented, as I recall 
it, show that there is a vast quantity of water, more than enough to supply 
not only the current needs of San Francisco and its surrounding territory, 
but that it would take care of the normal increase in popualtion for many 
years to come. Also if— 

Mr. Manson (interrupting): Yes, sir. 

Mr. Manson (resuming): Moreover, if San Francisco shall be per¬ 
mitted to construct the most economical dam in the Hetch Hetchy to supply 


152 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


itself for many years to come with water, the amount 'of water in that 
dam will be in excess of its requirements, and it can then turn that water 
loose at this point (indicating), and permit it to flow to the diversion works 
of the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts during the time of the year 
when the natural discharge of the river shall be below the capacities of 
those ditches. 

This is the only area left free from complicating claims; it is the largest 
area that the city can derive its water from; it is the purest water, because 
all other areas have a reasonable amount of sediment and there are private 
holdings in them. They are subject to increase in population; this one 
must forever remain free of habitation by virtue of the natural conditions 
and by virtue of the fact that it is in the hands of the National Govern¬ 
ment, which will maintain it as a reservation. The reservoir site I hope you 
will visit. The area that it lies in is not the great scenic feature of the 
Park. In fact, an artist visiting the spot and reproducing it on canvas de¬ 
liberately painted into the picture a vast lake that the picture would be 
more attractive, and the converting of this waste tract into a reservoir will 
enhance the beauties of the Park. 

Mr. Garfield: Do I understand, Mr. Manson, that you represent the city 
in this application? 

A. Yes, sir, I do. 

Voice: Mr. Secretary, I would like the privilege-. 

Mr. Garfield: One moment, please. Mr. Mayor, I understand that these 
proceedings are being reported by a stenographer, and that in due time a 
copy of the transcript will be received by me? 

Mr. Manson: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garfield: Now, sir, we will hear you. 

Same Voice: My name is P. J. Hazen. I represent the Turlock Irriga¬ 
tion District, and I ask by what authority Mr. Manson represents the City of 
San Francisco? 

Mr. Manson: I request His Honor, the Mayor, to answer that. 

Mayor Taylor: The Board of Supervisors have, as I understand, re¬ 
scinded its former resolution in regard to the matter so as to authorize the 
present proceeding. 

Mr. Hazen: I desire to know—we are the people who are most inter¬ 
ested in the matter outside of San Francisco—and I desire to know by what 
authority these gentlemen represent San Francisco; what proceeding San 
Francisco is taking, and what is before the Secretary now to be heard? We 
have had no notice of any appplication to the Secretary of the Interior to 
change the former ruling. We have had no notice of any application and, 
as we have understood heretofore, that whenever any application would be 
made we should have notice that we should know what proceeding was to 
be had and what was desired to be asked of the Secretary of the Interior 
with regard to this matter. 

Mayor Taylor: I will read this communication, Mr. Secretary. (Read¬ 
ing): 

11 New Hall of Justice, Office of Board of Supervisors. 

“32 Eddy Street, San Francisco, Cal., July 23, 1907. 

“Honorable Edward R. Taylor, Mayor:—I have the honor to transmit to 
you a copy of Resolution No. 1170 (New Series) of the Board of Supervisors, 
adopted at a meeting of said Board held July 22, 1907, wherein and whereby 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


153 


you are requested to represent the Supervisors at a hearing before the Sec¬ 
retary of the Interior in the matter of the application of San Francisco for 
reservoirs and rights of way in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. 

“Resolution No. 1170 (New Series): Whereas, Secretary of the Interior 
James R. Garfield has granted a rehearing in the matter of the application 
of the City and County of San Francisco for reservoir rights of way in the 
Hetch Hetchy Valley, to be held in this city on Wednesday evening, July 
24, 1907, at 8:30 p. m.; and 

“Whereas, Resolution No. 6949 of this Board, declaring in its opinion 
that this source of water supply was unavailable, was based upon the ad¬ 
verse action of former Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock; 

11 Resolved, therefore, That Resolution No. 6949 of this Board be and it 
hereby is repealed; that the chambers of the Board of Supervisors be placed 
at the disposal of Secretary Garfield, and that His Honor, Mayor Taylor, be 
requested to represent this Board at the said meeting. 

“Respectfully, JOHN H. R\ r AN, 

‘ 1 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 

Mr. Manson: Mr: Mayor, if you will permit me, at the time the first 
resolution mentioned, 6949, was passed the entire matter was in the hands of 
the then City and County Attorney. Authorized by him, the matter was 
placed in my hands to appear at Washington and to present the brief here 
presented. And the rescinding of that resolution puts the whole matter 
back in the hands of the Department. And, furthermore, acting under 
that, the Mayor requested me to lay the matter before the Secretary. 

Mr. Phelan: The representatives of the irrigation districts telegraphed 
to Washington protesting against this proceeding. They were notified there 
would probably be a hearing here in San Francisco, and they have since been 
notified- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): All persons who sent notices on to Wash¬ 
ington were notified of this hearing. 

Mr. L. L. Dennett: I received notice. 

Mr. Phelan: Mr. Hazen, you received notice? 

Mr. Hazen: No, sir; and it has taken me all day to find out there was 
going to be a meeting. 

Mr. Garfield: Gentlemen, I think there need be no difficulty about the 
question of notice. There will be no effort made on the part of the Depart¬ 
ment to take snap judgment. There will be ample opportunity for every¬ 
body properly interested in connection with this matter to be heard or to 
present in full whatever claims they may have, before I make up my mind. 

Mr. Hazen: That is what we desire, your honor. We have not been 
advised as to what application is before you, as to what action is desired to 
be taken by you. We have not been advised that a hearing would be had 
at 8:30 to-night, but we are here trying to find out- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): The hearing is on the reopening of the 
case as presented to the Department of the Interior, on the use of the valley 
above there as stated by the representatives making this application. 

Mr. Hazen: The question then before you to-night is as to whether the 
matter will be reopened? 

Mr. Garfield: It is already reopened. 

Mr. Hazen: All that I ask on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District is, 
that whenever that hearing is to be reopened we shall be advised of what is 




154 


WATER SUPPLY REPOETS 


presented to you upon that application, and that when that is done we shall 
have an opportunity to be heard. Not knowing what application has been 
laid before you, not knowing who is representing these parties, not knowing 
what is being done, we are not prepared to present to you what we have to 
say upon our side of the matter. I am here simply to represent the Turlock 
Irrigation District, which, so far as the application is concerned, so far as I 
am advised, we are not prepared to present our side of the matter until we 
know what has been presented to you, and in what manner it is to be pre¬ 
sented; and we simply ask that we have the opportunity, whenever you come 
to consider this matter, to know what has been placed before you, what are 
the arguments and what are the representations which are made to you in 
regard to this matter, and what is asked of you, so that we may have an 
opportunity to present our side of the matter. 

Mr. Phelan: Mr. Secretary, I was authorized to act on behalf of the 
Federated Water Committee of San Francisco, which is a committee com¬ 
posed of persons from the various leading commercial and business organiza¬ 
tions; and the Board of Supervisors have appointed the Mayor to represent 
them and the city; and Mr. Manson, by reason of the rescinding of the for¬ 
mer resolution, assumes his original position; he is the spokesman so far as 
the engineering matter is concerned, of the city; however, the Mayor is au¬ 
thorized to represent the city, and he certainly can decide these conflicting 
interests. I, representing a citizen’s committee, appearing here as a citizen, 
understand the Attorney-General has rendered an opinion to the President 
deciding that the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to make the grants 
for which San Francisco has applied; and that you will, if satisfied that the 
opinion is sound, have a hearing upon the application, and that this is the 
hearing. Also we are in receipt of a telegram from your secretary saying a 
hearing will be had, and we now understand that you are actually hearing 
the application now on its merit. 

Mr. Garfield: Yes, that is as I understand it; the purpose of this meet¬ 
ing is to hear the pros and cons- 

Mr. Manson (interrupting): There are before you but two definite 
propositions as clean cut as it is possible to make them; they are to store 
the waters, the waste flood waters, of the Tuolumne in two reservoir sites, 
Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor. These are definitely surveyed and the 
lines marked on the ground, and maps in conformity are on file showing the 
volumes of water proposed to be stored. After these waters are stored they 
can be brought by channels to points of use, but these are law matters that 
are not to be considered here; they are granted under the laws of the State. 
So there is no question as to what is applied for, nor can there be any doubt 
as to what is aimed at by this proceeding: it is simply the right to store 
waste flood waters, without interfering with existing rights or causing in¬ 
convenience or loss to existing users to the slightest extent, in two definitely 
surveyed reservoir sites and to utilize that water for the highest purpose to 
which water can be applied, the supply of the people. 

Mr. Dennett: Mr. Secretary, I represent the Modesto Irrigation Asso¬ 
ciation and, like Mr. Hazen, I labored under some doubt as to the situation. 
I had no knowledge of any official action looking toward a reopening of this 
question having been taken, and presumed that it was an informal matter 
worked up by those who have presumed to interest themselves in what they 
believe to be the interests of the city. I shall avail myself of the privilege 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


155 


of submitting a brief in the matter at the proper time. Now, in regard to 
this matter, this of course is not the time for a discussion of legal questions, 
but that the matter may be clearly understood we believe that under the 
law we are entitled to the amount of water necessary to the beneficial irri¬ 
gation of our lands-• 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): Do you claim that you have a right to in¬ 
creased water for irrigation purposes beyond the point or amount covered by 
your present use? 

Mr. Dennett: Well, I will state a little further. When the districts 
were organized they filed an appropriation appropriating what they deemed 
sufficient water for the irrigation of the lands. The law provides that within 
a certain time after such an appropriation works shall be commenced and 
pursued to a completion of the structures. The Turlock District appropriated 
1500 second feet of water and the Modesto District appropriated 650 second 
feet. These canals will not divert that much water; they will not carry that 
much water. Two hundred and fifty thousand acres will yet be brought un¬ 
der irrigation, however. Already they have made great strides; the Modesto 
District has about 14,000 acres under irrigation and the Turlock District has 
about 26,000 acres, and all this has been done within three years from the 
time the water commenced to run into the districts. And we claim that 
when we are in a position to use the full amount of our appropriation we are 
entitled to that much water, but to all the water we need, not only as that 
may be normal flow, but also to such portion of the storm waters as may be 
necessary for the beneficial irrigation of these lands. So it may be possible 
to arrive at some settlement of this controversy, as the only thing the dis¬ 
tricts desire is to be assured that they will have their supply of water to an 
amount necessary for the beneficial irrigation of the lands. 

Mr. Hazen: Excuse me, I think there would be no question but what 
we could arrive at some settlement of it. 

Mr. Dennett (resuming): The districts are concerned that they be pro¬ 
tected in the right to take the waters they require, whether it is flood or 
normal flow. The irrigation season is not confined to the few months in the 
summer. During the last ten years the rainfall has been eleven or twelve 
inches, and we require irrigation for practically twelve months in the year. 

Now, another thing, Mr. Secretary, any estimate as to the claims of San 
Francisco must be based not upon the average flow of the river; we must 
take the minimum flow of the river in the lowest year. 

Mr. Garfield: Quite right. 

Mr. Dennett (resuming): All of the estimates are based on the average 
flow of the river- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): Is it not true that the average flow may 
be properly considered on the question of storage- 

Mr. Dennett (interrupting): Well, I think in some years the low flow 
there was not- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): My impression is you will find there is a 
different rule to be applied in the question of flood waters than- 

Mr. Russell L. Dunn (interrupting): Mr. Secretary, the utilizable flow 
of these rivers varies from about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the total flow; 
that is, the portion which can be taken from the pre-flowing water in the 
flood season, and the portion which can be stored of the two, added together, 
constitutes about 20 per cent of the total flow. 







156 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Mr. Dennett (resuming): In July, 1900, the minimum flow of the Tuol¬ 
umne River was 824 second feet. Now there is a private canal with an ap- 
propiiation of 60 second feet, which is prior to the rights of these districts, 
but otherwise they have the prior right. In July there was, as stated, 824 
second feet, in August 112, and in September 49, an amount absolutely in¬ 
sufficient for the needs of these districts. Now if as a matter of fact, the 
largest possible use is to be made of the waters of these streams, and if the 
storm and flood waters of this river are necessary for the beneficial irrigation 
of the lands within the districts, then the city of San Francisco can go else¬ 
where, where it will not interfere with any right—the largest possible use 
should hold that the city should go elsewhere. 

Here are 250 ; 000 acres of land upon which over three millions of dollars 
have been expended, and where within a brief period of time, a very few 
years, every acre will be under irrigation if there be water enough for that 
use. Now when that time comes the value of these lands will depend abso¬ 
lutely upon the possibility of there being sufficient storage to impound 
enough water to b§ distributed over the land. The districts were constructed 
—I may depart and say that I presume you are aware of the law of this 
State which permits persons to form fhemselves into associations of irriga- 
tionists and bond their holdings to finance large irrigation schemes. These 
districts did this very thing, and the districts were constructed upon the 
faith that they had a right to the flow of thejwater—flood and normal—nec¬ 
essary for the beneficial irrigation of the lands. 

There also are possibly a hundred thousand acres of land outside of these 
districts susceptible of irrigation from this river, but which can only be irri¬ 
gated by a storage system for holding water. Now I believe the Govern¬ 
ment should take into consideration these other lands. As representatives of 
the Turlock and Modesto Districts, we have no right to make this claim, but 
I nevertheless suggest it. All we ask is that these districts be protected in 
their right to the storm waters. 

Mr. Phelan: Did your district introduce that bill that was vetoed by 
the Governor? 

A. Yes, sir; representations had been made to us that a grant would 
be made to the city with a promise of sufficient water for the districts, and 
there was introduced into the last Legislature a bill which was endorsed in 
the House and after repeated conferences between the irrigationists and the 
local representatives of some irrigation project, I forget its name, Mr. Sec¬ 
retary. 

Mr. Garfield: The Orland project? 

(Resuming): Yes, sir, the Orland project; the bill was finally put in 
form so as to affect only the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts; it 
dedicated to the districts the amount of water necessary to the beneficial 
irrigation of the lands included within the districts. This bill was formu¬ 
lated and introduced upon the advice of the unofficial representatives of the 
city of San Francisco, and just judge of our surprise when, after the bill had 
been favorably reported and passed by both houses and lay before the Gov¬ 
ernor, to have opposition directed towards it from a coterie of persons in 
San Francisco who, unofficially representing the city, advised us to submit it. 

Mr. Phelan: Did it not seek, Mr. Dennett, to dedicate all of the storm 
waters of the region to the districts? 

A. No, sir; I have not a copy of it here with me, but as nearly as I 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


157 


remember it, the bill was this: There is hereby dedicated and set apart to 
the irrigation districts in actual operation such water in the stream which 
is now the source of supply, such water as may be necessary for the benefi¬ 
cial irrigation of the lands within the boundaries of the districts. 

Mr. Manson: May I ask who were the official representatives of this 
city who acquiesced in that? 

A. Mr. Manson, you, yourself made this statement. 

Mr. Manson: No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Dennett: Did not you tell- 

Mr. Manson (interrupting): I want to know, sir, who were the official 
representatives of this city- 

Mr. Dennett (interrupting): No, sir; no official representatives of this 
city acquiesced in the bill, but the bill was drafted in accordance with sug¬ 
gestions made by yourself to representatives of our locality that you believed 
San Francisco would acquiesce- 

Mr. Manson (interrupting): I want to say this: I wish to see every 
right the Modesto and Turlock Districts, even to the full capacities of the 
ditches as named by their representatives, fully protected. Not one single 
drop of water should be stored in any reservoirs ever made except during 
such periods of time as the river shall be discharging in excess of the capac¬ 
ities of those ditches. The idea that the waste flood waters from 1501 square 
miles as is tributary at the point of the diversion ditch is necessary to supply 
the 402 square miles, as represented here, and that none of that water can 
go to waste during flood water periods, is absolutely absurd. The only water 
that the city wants to store is the excess flood water, extra seasonal waste 
flood waters in excess of the uses of those districts. And you may place, so 
far as I can recommend, any guard you please on the rights of the ditches 
which your judgment suggests is necessary. 

Mr. Garfield: It seems to me, gentlemen, from the two statements that 
you make, that there will be no difficulty in you people getting together on 
this proposition. 

Mr. Dennett: Mr. Secretary, I do not think there will be any trouble 
as far as the districts are concerned. I wish to say this, however- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): Then I will ask the representatives of the 
city and the representatives of the two districts to confer with one another 
and present to me any agreement that you may reach on this subject. 

Mr. Hazen: There never would have been any difficulty about that if 

thev would have conferred with us. 

«/ 

Mr. Manson: Mr. Secretary, I think it can- 

A. C. Boyle (interrupting): Mr. Secretary, I represent the men most 
vitally interested in this thing; I represent the Modesto Water Consumers ’ 
Association. My name is A. C. Boyle. 

Mr. Garfield: Are you an official of that association, Mr. Boyle? 

A. Yes, sir. We will submit a brief to you in which we will show you 
that in a dry year, in the month of August, the normal flow of the river there 
will not be enough water to supply San Francisco in a dry year. What we 
want to know is, how are we going to be protected? If the normal flow will 
not pass over the dam, where will we come in at? They have made all their 
statements on the normal flow of the river in an average year. 

It seems to me, with your sanction to a reopening of the matter, that San 
Francisco should apply to Congress, and if there was anybody there that 







158 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


could speak for the city, I believe I might possibly promise that the opposi¬ 
tion that has been developed there (turning to Manson: I believe you will 
admit that it has been pretty effective so far; we have defeated you twice) 
might be wiped out, conditionally, of course, upon the city applying to Con¬ 
gress for those rights. The city will have to apply to Congress, anyhow, be¬ 
fore she can finance the project. Let Congress guarantee—Mr. Manson, do 
I understand that you guarantee us the water we require? 

A. By no means, sir; by no means could the city guarantee what Na¬ 
ture has decreed as the discharge of that river. All the city asks is the 
privilege of storing the water, the waste flood water, that last year passed 
your headgates by the millions of cubic feet ; devasted the San Joaquin Val¬ 
ley and are now flowing in the Pacific Ocean. The city wants to utilize these 
waters for domestic purposes. We know full well that the low-water dis¬ 
charge of the Tuolumne is far below the discharge of the two ditches, but 
the rights still remain to the districts to store additional waters in other res¬ 
ervoirs. The Tuolumne River presents greater possibilities of storage than 
all of the other streams flowing from the Sierra Nevada—from the Feather 
River on the north to the Kern River on the south—there is far larger stor¬ 
age capacity; and it is by no means exhausted by the utilization of these 
two reservoir sites; there are a number of others that can be utilized by the 
districts whenever they see fit to store the waters; and even then there must 
still go to waste a large volume of flood waters in any average year. There 
might possibly be periods, but I do not believe they have existed in the past, 
when all of that water in an extremely dry year might be stored, but the 
equalizing effect of the flood storage reservoirs would tide over that period 
so far as the greatest needs are concerned, even granted that such a year 
should occur. The beneficial effect of the reservoirs would be to tide over 
such a year. Right now there is not one single drop of water being stored. 

Mr. Boyle: We have now an application that they will permit us to 
subdivide this land in such shape that they will build the reservoirs. 

Mr. Manson: The reservoirs are not built; I made the statement that 
there is no water stored now. 

Mr. Boyle: That is right, but we are making an application to store 
these waters for our use. 

Mr. Manson: Prior to that there is one that we have permission to store 
it for ourselves. 

Mr. Boyle: Which application has been refused, so therefore ours is 
the prior one, to get down to technicalities. 

It is a known fact, Mr. Secretary, that when it comes to supplying plant 
life in opposition to the saving of human life, the law's would demand that 
the districts let their crops burn up to save the life of one child in San 
Francisco perishing of thirst. We know wrn would have to give in. Once 
San Francisco gets a foothold there it simply opens up unlimited litigation, 
and these people have no money to fight San Francisco. These people are all 
for the most of them poor farmers, who have mortgaged their homes to con¬ 
struct this irrigation system, and probably nowhere in the world have a lot 
of farmers banded together and made such wonderful strides as have these 
men in the last three years; but they are poor and are loaded with debt that 
they incurred simply to distribute this water over their lands. San Francisco 
has kept this agitation going for years until it has depreciated the value of 
our land. Now we wish it settled ,and we ask that the thing be settled by 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


159 


the law-making body of the United States, the only people who can guar¬ 
antee us our rights and guarantee the city’s rights so that San Francisco 
could finance the proposition. We ourselves want these dams built- 

Mr. Manson (interrupting): Do I understand the gentleman to say that 
he wants to build dams in the same place that we want to? 

A. Should not we have to build the dams to store the water? We have 
an application to store on Lake Eleanor; we have asked the Reclamation 
Service to build the dam. 

Mr. Phelan: Mr. Secretary, as I take it, the application of San Fran¬ 
cisco was made in 1902. The Secretary decided he had no jurisdiction. 
Therein was the error; he had jurisdiction, and the application is still before 
the Department; it is revived by this reopening. Certainly we would in no 
measure curtail the ability of the farmers to cultivate profitably their lands. 
There is none but the most cordial feelings between the city of San Francisco 
and the farmers, because there cannot be any conflict between them. Our 
engineers inform us that there is a sufficient amount of water that can be 
stored to serve both the districts and the city. When the gentleman refers 
to an act of Congress he seeks merely to obstruct the application. The At¬ 
torney-General has decided that the Secretary has power to grant this appli¬ 
cation, and therefore the suggestion can be urged for no reason but obstruc¬ 
tion. As for the ability of San Francisco to finance a proposition of this 
kind: its bonds are not issued upon property acquired; the bonds are issued 
upon the credit of the city. Therefore if the credit of San Francisco be 
good it can obtain the fifty millions necessary and throw it into the sea. So 
far as the financiers are concerned they could recover against the city—there 
are $475,000,000 worth of assessable property here that would stand behind 
bonds issued. 

Mr. Boyle: Has the Secretary the right to do anything more than sim¬ 
ply to grant the rights? Can he guarantee the supply of water to the dis¬ 
tricts? If you are willing to go to Congress I can safely promise that the 
opposition that has thus far defeated you will be withdrawn. You simply 
say there is plenty of water for all; that your engineers so tell you. Being 
an engineer myself, I am fully aware of the weakness of the human nature, 
and know that engineers are liable to make mistakes. In fact, Mr. Grunsky 
made such a slight mistake that he actually tried to run water up hill. 

Mr. Phelan: On what authority do you state this? 

A. On the authority of everybody who has seen the ditch water run. 

Mr. Garfield: Gentlemen, I think we are getting rather afield. I do not 
want to unduly hasten these proceedings, but let me get in my own mind 
this question of representation correct. You two gentlemen, Mr. Dennett, 
and you, Mr. Hazen, I understand that you represent these two districts. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Dennett the Turlock, and Mr. Hazen the Modesto? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hazen: We are all acting in harmony. Mr. Boyle, this gentleman 
here, represents the Water Consumers’ Association; it is composed of people 
of the two districts; it is an unofficial organization. 

Mr. Boyle: I am not officially connected with the districts. 

Mr. Hazen: Of course, we don’t stand for all they do; we cannot agree 
in all our views. 



160 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Mr. Garfield: No, I understand. Now, gentlemen, in hearing you it 
seems to me that over the use of the water in these districts as dsitinguished 
from the requested use of the water by the city of San Francisco, that there* 
can be no real difficulty in you gentlemen getting together, as has been sug¬ 
gested, on that proposition. And I would ask you gentlemen of the districts 
that in whatever brief you present in connection with this matter that you 
confer with the City of San Francisco. 

Mr. Hazen (interrupting): I beg to suggest that, so far as the irriga¬ 
tion district, the Turlock District, is concerned, there never has been any 
question. We have always felt that we could compromise, but all we wanted 
was to be represented, so that if they did not let us know what they were 
applying for we would have a chance to be heard. 

Mr. Manson: Was it ever known by the districts what they were ob¬ 
jecting to? 

Mr. Hazen: You have not recognized us in any respect, way, shape or 
form. 

Mr. Manson: Under what obligation are we to recognize the district 
under the law? Have we ever attempted to interfere- 

Mr. Hazen (interrupting): I don’t know what you have done; you 

never have recognized us in any- 

Mr. Manson (interrupting): Under what obligation of the law is the 
city to recognize the districts? 

Dr. A. A. D’Ancona: Mr. Secretary, I was a member of the Board of 
Supervisors at the time the original application was made. The matter was 
in the hands, at that time, of the Committee on Public Utilities. I was a 
member of that committee. We recognized that the interests of San Fran¬ 
cisco and of the interior were identical; that we could not afford to hurt the 
prosperity of the valley without sacrifice to a similar extent of the interests 
of San Francisco; and we did not want to take away any water that they 
could use in the valley. We attempted to have conferences with representa¬ 
tives of both the Turlock and Modesto districts, and one or two of them once 
in a while came to the committee’s meetings and, I regret to say, did not 
show any spirit of compromise or even of conference. But, at any rate, we 
suggested to representatives of these districts that we were willing to advise 
the people of San Francisco to spend for a dam (I do not now remember the 
exact amount), somewhere around five hundred thousand dollars in building a 
dam that was unnecessarily high for the uses of the city, in order to store 
more water than the city could use; that we would build it out of city money 
so as to doubly protect the interests of these districts for the future. They 
made no attempt to construct a reservoir, and had made none, but still we 
felt that while we were building a reservoir for San Francisco we would 
build one large enough to give more than we needed for our own purposes, 
so at the time that San Francisco was drawing water the districts could also 
draw water. The city of San Francisco has shown a proper spirit towards 
the consumers of the waters in this valley. 

Mr. Hazen: Dr. D’Ancona, are you familiar with the facts in this mat¬ 
ter? 

A. I am familiar with what was done at that time. 

Mr. Hazen: Are you familiar with the fact that the Turlock District 
appointed a committee to meet a committee in San Francisco in regard to 
this matter, and that your committee did not meet us? 




SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


161 


Mr. Dennett: This is one of the difficulties we are confronted with, 
Mr. Secretary: Congress should give an undisputed and vested right to a 
division of this w r ater. It seems to me that whatever is granted by you, in 
all respects to your office, is more or less in the nature of a license, possibly 
revokable by your successor. Congress should grant to the districts certain 
rights. These are legal propositions and are actual difficulties in a settle¬ 
ment of this question. 

Mr. Phelan: I will ask Mr. J. D. Galloway be heard. 

J. D. Galloway (a civil engineer): Mr. Secretary, I have taken the 
trouble to compile a few notes from the data that was gotten by the Geologi¬ 
cal Survey. The reason therefor was that I was requested by the vice-presi¬ 
dent of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco to come here to-night and 
offer my ideas. 

Mr. Garfield: I think your suggestions were printed, were they not? 

A. No, sir; I think not. 

Q. Well, did not I see something you had to say in- 

A. (interrupting): Well, that was with regard to another project. I will 
take but just a moment. Personally, I believe it is quite possible for the Mo¬ 
desto and Turlock Districts and San Francisco to get together. San Fran¬ 
cisco has made application to store some of this immense amount of flood 
water that goes to waste. The districts have got enough water except pos¬ 
sibly in the dryest years. They have reservoir sites in plenty of places which 
they could use if they wished to. I have taken the reports of stream meas¬ 
urements that are made by the Geological Survey and which are available 
for every one. I have assumed that we want to take 60 million gallons, 
which is the amount of water Mr. Grunsky reported, and have figured how 
much water we would really wish to use of the total amount that flows out 
through that river. In 1896 the city, if it took 60 million gallons per day, 
asks that we have 3.98 per cent of the total amount of water; in 1897 we 
ask for 2.8 per cent; in 1898, which was a dry year, we ask for 7.9 per cent; 
and in 1899 we ask for 4 per cent. In 1900 we ask for but 4.28 per cent, and 
so it goes. In no year do we ask for more than 8 per cent if 60 million gal¬ 
lons per day is used for five months of the year; the balance of the time there 
is so much water flowing that no one can control it. The Geological Survey 
has made measurements of these irrigation districts every two years. In 
1903, of the total amount of water that flowed there, the city would ask you 
for 3.4 per cent, and there was taken by the canals, I don’t know what they 
claim, 9.6 per cent of the total amount of water that flowed in that river, 
making a total of 13 per cent; that was providing the canals take what they 
are now using and the city was supplied for five months in the year. For 
1902 the figures are, the city 4.3 per cent and the canals 6.5 per cent, or a 
total of 10 per cent. We in San Francsico ask to use, as Mr. Manson has 
claimed here, we only ask to use the stored waters; on the basis of these 
kind of figures it seems to me there is water enough for everybody. 

Russell L. Dunn (a civil engineer): Mr. Secretary, I have personal in¬ 
terests in water in the mountains for which I have made plans at one time 
and presented to the city, and which I may again offer to the city; and I 
have an intimate acquaintance with the whole subject of Sierra water supply 
for San Francisco, having given it a study of the last twenty years. I am 
an engineer by profession. 

First, a question seems to be unanswered, is there any law which would 



162 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


permit the taking by these irrigation districts of water in excess of the quan¬ 
tities that they are now using up to an amount required by the entire areas. 
I would sav that, while I do not know, I know there is a decision of the court 
in the case of the land grant of the Central Pacific Railway Company in 
which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the law required, 
the act of Congress required the disposal of the land in five years. The land 
was not sold. The courts held that mortgaging it (it was mortgaged), was 
disposal in the meaning of the law. I think the same ruling will apply in 
the use of the irrigation districts, for they are mortgaged for these water 
rights. 

Now to the main question you are considering: There are just three 
questions, three points, to be considered with reference to this application 
the city has to take into consideration: first, the quantity of the water; 
second, the quality, and third, the cost. Now as to the quality which this 
city requires, and it requires more than 60 million gallons per day—person¬ 
ally,! think it should be made at least 200 million gallons. There are at 
least seven other Sierra rivers the waters of which is available for the supply 
of San Francisco, which, singly or combined, will supply San Francisco with 
from two to three hundred million gallons per day. They are all Sierra riv¬ 
ers; they are all north of the Tuolumne River—Yuba, various branches of the 
American, the Mokelumne, and the Cosumues and the Stanislaus. Some of 
these rivers singly, two or more of them combined—and the conditions are 
such that they can be combined—will supply San Francisco. 

As to the quality of the water, all of the Sierra rivers are substantially 
alike; the water comes to the land in the form of snow, and it is simply a 
detail of engineering to maintain its purity. There is no settlement in any 
of the watersheds to impair the quality, and what settlement there is is 
more or less temporary. 

With reference to reservoir capacity, a statement was made this evening 
which I think, on reflection, will be withdrawn. The statement was made 
that the Tuolumne reservoir sites had more capacity, more water could be 
stored in them and more water could be received by them, and they were 
more numerous than any of the other rivers of the Sierra Nevadas combined. 
That is not the fact. I know this personally. 

The other point to which I have called your attention is the cost of the 
water supply. The cost is as yet an undetermined quantity as between the 
several different sources of supply. There is nothing yet to demonstrate that 
the Tuolumne source is cheaper than the others. 

Mr. Garfield: As to the cost, that would be a matter which San Fran¬ 
cisco would have to determine; I would not be particularly interested in that, 
and between them it would be simply a question as to whether San Francisco 
desired to take one or another; it would be a matter- 

Mr. Dunn (interrupting): I appreciate that fully, and I only spoke of 
it for the reason that as soon as San Francisco has decided, has found that 
the Tuolumne is the cheapest, then is the time to make this application to 
the United States Government for it. 

Mr. Manson: Mr. Secretary, I think the decision of the city’s authori¬ 
ties with regard to that are sufficient. And as to the statement that the 
Tuolumne River has natural storage areas greater than all of those of the 
other streams, from the Feather River on the north to the Kern River on the 
south, that statement is not only not withdrawn, but it is reiterated. I know 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


163 


the capacities of them and so does Mr. Lippincott, with whom I have dis¬ 
cussed this question, and we have both looked them over. 

Mayor Taylor: Mr. Manson, with regard to that statement you said you 
not only withdrew it; you meant you not only not withdrew it- 

Mr. Manson: I said I did not withdraw it. 

Mr. Dennett: I have here a statement of some fourteen reservoir sites 
on the Tuolumne River, and the total of these is nearly 247,000 acre feet. I 
got this from Mr. Lippincott several years ago. 

Mr. Manson: I do not know what height of dams Mr. Lippincott based 
his statement on to me, but he said that that was the case. How many irri¬ 
gations do you require in the districts? 

Mr. Dennett: We need one irrigation for all of the lands in the dis¬ 
tricts. 

Mr. Manson: You receive one acre-foot mean annual rainfall; and two 
acre-feet on top of that would be an excessive use of water, would it not? 

A. Possibly. The Tuolumne River discharges far more water than two 
acre feet per acre of area. There is no question about the sufficiency of the 
water discharged by the Tuolumne River. It entirely is a question of avail¬ 
able storage; and you know there is no storage for a large quantity of this 
water discharged by the river. 

Q. Have you investigated that question sufficiently to be informed on 
that point? 

A. Yes, so far as the claims of the districts are concerned. 

Mr. Garfield: Now, gentlemen, that is an engineering question. 

Mr. Phelan: I understood you to say that you desired the parties to 
submit briefs, and if possible to come together- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): If by any agreement you gentlemen can 
come together as to the use of the water you will relieve me of a great deal 
of difficulty. 

Mr. Manson: The flood discharge is far in excess of the use of the dis¬ 
tricts, and the remaining twelve reservoir sites are available for the dis¬ 
tricts whenever they shall see fit to use them. 

Mr. Dennett: I understand that this is a matter here of record. We 
are not ready at this time to concede any priority as to the use of these two 
reservoirs or the water. Of course, in the absence of authority from our peo¬ 
ple we could not concede anything. 

Mr. Garfield: I do not understand that that is the proposition. Now 
are there any other interests to be heard? 

Mr. C. N. Beal: Mr. Secretary, my name is Beal; I represent the Bay 
Cities Water Company as its general manager. I want to say a very few 
.words, and thinking perhaps you might prefer to have a memorandum to 
recall what was said by the Bay Cities Water Company, which appears here 
as a private enterprise entirely, I have committed them to writing and will 
read them if you will permit and then file them with you. 

(Reading): ‘ ‘It being conceded that San Francisco stands in most 
urgent need of an additional water supply, and that such supply should be 
procured from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, it occurs to me that the points 
to be considered prior to any action by your Department either sustaining 
or setting aside the ruling of your predecessor in office, Honorable Ethan 
Allan Hitchcock, by which San Francisco was debarred from the Hetch 
Hetchy watersheds, should be based primarily upon determination of the 




164 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


facts as to the possibility of San Francisco ’s necessities being provided from 
other sources than the Tuolumne River. That is, as to whether the necessi¬ 
ties and situation of San Francisco in the way of a water supply can or can 
not be properly provided for from any source other than the Hetch Hetchy 
region. 

11 This seems not a judicial question, but one that should be determined 
from physical and economic facts. And, if it be demonstrated that the needs 
of San Francisco can be properly and economically supplied with water from 
other sources, I take it there will be no disposition on the part of the Gen¬ 
eral Government to permit encroachment either upon the Yosemite reserve 
or upon the rights or opportunities of the ranchers in the valley below it to 
supply water to their arid fields. 

“For these reasons, I shall not attempt an extended argument, but con¬ 
tent myself with the unqualified assertion that the physical characteristics 
of the American-Cosumnes source of water supply which has been prof erred 
To the city of San Francisco by Bay Cities Water Company, are superior to 
those of the Tuolumne region, and that this source of water supply can be 
availed of with an ultimate higher economy than can the Hetch Hetchy. The 
Bay Cities Water Company, proponents of the American-Cosumnes source of 
water supply, acting upon the request of the City of San Francisco and the 
refusal of Secretary Hitchcock to grant San Francisco the Hetch Hetchy, 
has expended large sums of money in the acquisition of properties not useful 
for other than water supply purposes, and in making the most thorough in¬ 
vestigation ever made in respect of a source of water supply for the city; 
and stands ready to, and will welcome an opportunity to submit proofs of 
the assertions which I have made to such engineers and other experts as the 
Department of the Interior may designate, and is confident of its ability to 
show conclusively that there is no reason why the Federal Government should 
abandon to the City of San Francisco its present control of the Hetch 
Hetchy region. ’ ’ 

I want to say to you in addition to this, Mr. Secretary, that the nature 
of this hearing was one of which we were entirely uninformed. I am very 
pleased indeed that the Secretary will consider the thing on the basis of 
briefs. Our Chief Engineer is here, but will not trespass upon your time, 
because of my understanding (I hope you will correct me if I am wrong) 
that briefs of the water situation and arguments in regard to the necessity 
of reopening this question will be considered before — 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): I have reopened it, but I shall not decide 
it until the briefs have been presented by all parties interested. 

Mr. Beal: That leaves us, sir, without a word to say now and I thank 
you for the attention you have already given me. 

Mr. Garfield: How much time do you want to submit your briefs? 

Mr. Beal: Ten days will suit us, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Phelan: Thirty days will be sufficient for the City of San Francisco. 

Mr. Garfield: I shall ask that your briefs be exchanged one with 
another, so I may have the full benefit of all discussion and the briefs that 
are presented to me will be not only first briefs but briefs in answer one of 
another. In this way I will have before me everything that all of the 
interests here desire to present for my consideration in a final determination 
I will make of this matter. 

Mr. Manson: May I ask that these several briefs be confined to the 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


165 


users of that source which have been selected, and the interests involved in 
the proposed use of that water; or shall our briefs be made to cover the 
answer of the various schemes that upon a commercial basis have been sub¬ 
mitted to the city for purchase. I would prefer that it be confined to this 
particular question of the Turlock and Modesto Districts, and the meeting 
of all of the rights that they ask and utilization of the waters in these two 
reservoirs. A rule permitting of opening it to all of the various projects that 
have been presented to the city solely for speculative reasons, would very 
much complicate the matter so far as the presentation of it is concerned. 

Mr. Garfield: I do not understand that there are any other interests 
except those represented here tonight. 

Mr. Manson: The Bay Cities is one; Mr. Dunn presented another. 

Mr. Dunn: I would like to answer their briefs and present my own. 
I would not go beyond the scope of that. 

Mr. Garfield: Just what do you represent? 

Mr. Dunn: I have a proposition which involves the existing Spring 
Valley Water Company, of which I am a stockholder, and rights of a source 
on the American River, North and Middle Forks. 

Mr. Garfield: That is entirely outside of what we are discussing 
here, when you get —- 

Mr. Dunn (interrupting): The Government is asked to reverse its 
policy. The question is as to the necessity of doing so in the interest of San 
Francisco. We contend that there is no necessity for having the Tuolumne 
so far as the quantity and quality are concerned. There is nothing left but 
the cost, and the city should determine that — 

Mr. Phelan (interrupting): Mr. Secretary, I think I can clarify the 
atmosphere. Providing the Interior Department grants the rights of way, 
San Francisco would then be in a position to consider that source available. 
It is the intention of the city to appoint engineers who will examine carefully 
all available sources. If you grant the city this right it merely puts us in 
possession of an available source which we may not ultimately want. You 
merely intimate to the city that here is an available supply controlled by the 
Government, which, if it is worthy of development, is yours. I do not see 
how privately owned water supplies can be prejudically affected by the action 
suggested. 

Mayor Taylor: Mr. Secretary, it seems there is no controversy here 
before you to be determined except a controversy on the part of the city on 
one side and the irrigation districts on the other side; and it seems to me 
that these are the only things that you would wish to hear in determining 
this question. The only question before you, seems to me, is whether or not 
the city shall have the right of way through this reservation for the purpose 
of locating these reservoirs, that is, before all the others. That is resisted 
by these districts upon the ground that if permission is given the city they 
will be damaged. Nothing is shown that it will necessarily do so, but that it 
will be barely possible to do so. Now, as Mr. Phelan has well said, nothing 
at all is determined if you should grant this permission, as to San Francisco ’s 
future water supply. Nothing at all. You are giving San Francisco the 
privilege of using it if she upon examination determines she wishes to; and 
she will ask the citizens at some future time to determine between this 
particular source of water supply and other sources of water supply which 
doubtless will be submitted to the people. But if you refuse this application 


16G 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


of the city for this right of way it will undoubtedly cut out the people from 
passing upon the question as to whether or not they shall use this source of 
water supply. Now that is all the city asks; that this source of water supply 
be put up in such a condition that the citizens at the proper time may de¬ 
termine between this source and other sources, represented by gentlemen 
heard this evening. Why should they present arguments here to you against 
the voters of San Francisco having the right to determine as between their 
sources of supply and this particular source of supply ? 

John E. Bennett: Mr. Secretary, my name is Bennett; Attorney for 
Bay Cities Water Company. If you will examine the letter which the 
gentleman presented or called your attention to, from the Attorney-General’s 
office, you will find that the opinion of the Attorney-General was based upon 
the statement that it was represented to the Government that the only feas¬ 
ible supply of fresh water for San Francisco was in the Hetch Hetchy Valley, 
and consequently it was a matter of vital importance that the Government 
should grant to the city this particular source of water. Now, as the General 
Manager has stated, acting upon the refusal of the Secretary of the Interior 
to grant these rights, and upon the call of the city and the circumstance that 
here was a need for water, this corporation engaged in the investigation as 
to whether there was another feasible water supply for San Francisco, and 
they found there was, and they have invested very large sums of money in 
their work. Now it is our contention that the very question upon the thres¬ 
hold of all of this inquiry is, first, does San Francisco need these reservoir 
sites and this water in the Yosemite National Park f If it does not need it, 
if there is another place, or if there are other places where the water is equal¬ 
ly good, where the volume is equally as large, as great or greater, as we con¬ 
tend the American-Cosumnes shows vastly greater quantities and vastly 
greater reservoir possibilities than is the condition in the Yosemite, then, we 
say, there is no need of San Francisco entering the Yosemite and carrying in 
there an interest that is antagonistic, obviously, to the uses of the park as 
they have been designated by Congress. For it is to the interest of the 
Nation that as many people go into the Yosemite Park as possible and enjoy 
the recreation of that resort; whereas, if it becomes a source of headworks 
and headwaters of the city, it is to the interest of the city that just as few 
people go in there as is possible, in order that the waters may not be con¬ 
taminated. This is not for to-day; it is for a century. The thing to look at 
is the development, the future development of the city; the future demand 
on part of the people for water and the future uses of the park as a resort 
for the people. A railroad is in there now and travel will greatly increase, 
and year by year as time goes on, vast numbers of people will go into the 
park, travel over it and enjoy themselves. The city will require added 
quantities of water from time to time, and reservoir after reservoir will be 
added to the first two in the park to meet the constantly increasing demands 
of the people of the city. It is simply this, that now they are asking for but 
two reservoirs, and later on they will ask more, and ultimately all the res¬ 
ervoirs will pass over to the city. The same condition obtains in respect of 
the people of the valley: As needs and population there increase so also will 
their demands for water increase. 

Mr. Garfield: Now I see more clearly. I do not agree with the sug¬ 
gestions that you have made in regard to the question as presented. It seems 
to me this: That the city is in the position of having requested of the Govern- 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


167 


ment a permit of use so far as the Government could grant the right, of 
certain of the water-supply within the area under the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Government. It is for the city to determine primarily when they 
make that request whether or not the use of that water is advisable from 
the financial or other view-point, and not for the Federal Government to 
determine that point. 

Now as this application is made there are those who appear to object to 
that use upon the ground that they have a prior right to the use of the water; 
and it is perfectly clear as to this contention that the Government should not 
act without full hearing. 

As to the questions presented by the two speakers, it seems to me that 
they are not questions that I care to hear at this time. They are questions 
which the city itself must determine. The city says to me now, “we want to 
have the opportunity of considering whether we shall consider available a 
water supply in this particular territory.” And I think I will confine this 
hearing to that proposition. Whether there are other available water sup¬ 
plies, or whether the existing water supply may be superior to the one that 
they desire, is a matter which the city must determine and is not a question 
that the Department should consider. 

Mr. Beal: Mr. Secretary, I quite agree with you in that conclusion 
except in this respect and as this idea may cut a figure in it. This matter 
was presented fully and entirely to your predecessor, considered carefully and 
a ruling made thereupon. Relying upon that ruling and considering it as a 
finality, the city authorities of the City of San Francisco called upon the 
various persons publicly to submit plans and propositions and properties avail¬ 
able for a source of water supply to supply two hundred million gallons of 
water to the city a day. None of the properties held in private interests any¬ 
where in the Sierra Nevada mountains were properly constituted for a city 
water supply. The Bay Cities Water Company, and others similarly situated, 
relying upon the position assumed by the Department and relying, upon the 
city’s determination to abandon its effort in that direction, have expended 
large efforts and large sums in engineering investigations and in the acquisi¬ 
tion of properties not valuable except for the purpose of providing the city 
with what it asks for. And the position we now take, and in that you do not 
seem to quite agree with me, and I cannot take much exception to it, is that, 
having sustained these large expenses on the good faith of a departmental 
ruling and the official action of the city authorities, we are entitled to be 
heard before any action is taken by the Department that would lose us our 
expenditures. To protect these interests the Interior Department should hear 
argument as to whether or not the city requires this charity, if you please, 
from the General Government. 

Mr. Manson: Mr. Secretary, supplementing the proposition submitted 
by the Mayor, I would say that a denial of this would throw the city upon 
the tender mercies of pretty much everybody who had water rights for sale. 
Moreover, it does not deprive the city of taking advantage, as Mr. Phelan 
has explained, of any better source that may be offered. So that in con¬ 
fining it, prior to the granting or denial of these rights, to a comparison 
between the farmers and city, that would seem to be right; and I hope the 
decision of your honor- 

Mayor Taylor (interrupting): This equitable estoppal which is 
sought to be worked upon you, as is set forth in the words of the speaker just 



168 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


previous to Mr. Manson, is really enough to make any lawyer split liis sides 
with laughter. If there is such an equitable estoppal surely it is not to be 
made to you; it is to be made to the voter when these various water projects 
are submitted to the people. 

Mr. Garfield: I do not think there is any real question that need 
give us serious difficulty in connection with this matter, and I think that the 
representatives of the Bay Cities Water Company will agree with my deci¬ 
sion. In this matter, as indicated by one of the other speakers here, their 
side is not one which the Department should consider. The question is as to 
whether or not the Department will permit this water to be used by the city 
if the city wants it. I am very clear in my own mind that, viewed in the 
broadest possible way, that the use of the waters of the Sierra reserve or in 
the mountains cannot be put to any higher or better use, if free from restric¬ 
tions of private rights, than to the domestic uses of the cities along the Coast; 
and I confine that not to San Francisco, but to any of the cities where the 
domestic use requires the need of water supplies of the Sierras; and whether 
or not the cities will take advantage of such use is a matter which the 
citizens themselves must determine and not the Department of the Interior. 
And I think, viewing it in that light, that I shall confine these briefs to a 
discussion of those rights that are directly affected by the determination that 
I may make as to the right of the city to use these reservoirs and obtain 
privileges in those districts under the control of the Department; and there¬ 
fore I will ask that only those briefs be submitted that have to do with the 
direct conflict of right of the use of water there. 

Mayor Taylor: Now, as to time! 

Mr. Garfield: I shall be back in my office toward the middle of 
September; and, unless there is some objection, I wish all briefs to be sub¬ 
mitted by the 15th of September. 

Mayor Taylor: Counsel among themselves, I submit, Mr. Secretary, 
should agree as to the time when briefs should be filed and served on the 
other side ? 

Mr. Hazen: I would desire to ascertain—as yet what we have been dis¬ 
cussing— I understand there is some application before you ? 

Mr. Garfield: Yes; it is the application as stated. 

Mr. Hazen: They desire thirty days in which to present their briefs? 

Mayor Taylor: I have no doubt that Mr. Manson will be very specific 
in that regard so that the- 

Mr. Garfield (interrupting): I will ask then that you file your brief 
with these gentlemen first. How soon ? 

Mr. Manson: In ten days. 

Mr. Garfield: Very good. Thereafter, in thirty days, have the briefs 
made up in full. 


ADJOURNED. 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


169 


A BRIEF IN THE MATTER OF RESERVOIR RIGHTS OF WAY 
FOR A DOMESTIC AND MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY 
FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF 
SAN FRANCISCO, 

To be derived from the extra-seasonal or waste flood waters of Tuolumne 
River, stored in Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor reservoirs, in the 
Yosemite National Park, Tuolumne County, California. 


To the Honorable the Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.: 

STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

The City of San Francisco caused surveys to be made in 1901, through its 
Board of Public Works and in accordance with legal provisions, of two res¬ 
ervoir sites previously designated as such by the United States Geological 
Survey. 

These reservoir sites are in the basin of Tuolumne River, California, and 
within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park; and are designated Hetch 
Hetchy Valley Reservoir and Lake Eleanor Reservoir. 

These surveys were the bases of applications made in accordance with 
the law of February 15, 1901, as set forth in Appendix A and the plats of 
these reservoir surveys hereto attached. 

FILINGS AND APPLICATIONS. 

In the absence of a precedent as to the filings and applications in the name 
of a municipality, the said Board of Public Works caused the filings to be 
made, in the interests of the City, by and in the name of its then mayor, who 
formally transferred to the city all rights resulting therefrom. (See pages 
1-6, Appendix A.) 

These filings and applications were denied by the Secretary of the 
Interior, Hon. A. E. Hitchcock, both upon the original applications and upon 
a subsequent rehearing [see Appendix B (A)]. 

As one of the bases of these denials it was claimed that action by the 
legislative power of the Government was necessary [see Appendix B (B), 
page V.]. 

This view was not considered tenable by the representative of the city 
and the question was submitted to the President and by him referred to the 
Attorney-General of the United States 

Upon a brief submitted on behalf of the city on July 17th, 1905 (See Ap¬ 
pendix B), the acting Attorney-General submitted to the President an opinion 
that discretionary power to grant the application for reservoir rights of way 
asked for was vested in the Secretary of the Interior and suggesting that the 
matter could again be taken up with that official (see Appendix C). 

In accordance with this opinion, the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Jas. 
R. Garfield, reopened the matter; gave parties at interest a hearing in San 
Francisco on July 24, 1907, and requested that briefs be filed. 

On behalf of San Francisco the undersigned hereby renews the applica¬ 
tion for reservoir rights of way in conformity with the filings as set forth in 
Appendix A and the plats of the surveys made as therein set forth and as 



170 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


delineated on the plats of these surveys hereto attached and marked 
respectively: 

Reservoir Site on Tuolumne River, Tuolumne County, California, in 
T.l N, R. 20 E., and T. 1 N, R. 21 E, Mt. D. B. & M, 
and 

Take Eleanor Reservoir Site, Tuolumne County, California. 

(These plats being exact reproductions of the originals heretofore sub¬ 
mitted, but destroyed in the great fire of April 18-22, 1906|.) 

In conformity with the above it is desired to store in said reservoirs the 
extra seasonal or waste flood waters of Tuolumne River during non-irrigating 
months; and, during such irrigation periods as the flood discharge of Tuol¬ 
umne River, at the head works of the canals of Modesto and Turlock Irriga¬ 
tion Districts at La Grange, shall be in excess of the actual capacity of said 
canals up to the full amounts claimed by the filings of said districts, namely, 
1630 and 700 second feet. 

It is agreed on behalf of San Francisco that the Honorable the Secretary of 
the Interior shall prescribe and enforce such provisions as shall fully 
guarantee and protect the said Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts in 
their rights to and uses of water to the full amounts of their claims as 
above set forth : 

And also to all such extra seasonal or waste flood waters which said 
districts shall in the future impound or cause to be impounded, for their use. 
It is held on the part of San Francisco that there are other unused, capacious 
reservoirs than those herein designated, as set forth in the publications of the 
Department of the Interior, which are available for other interests; and, that 
the combined capacities of all of these reservoirs is less than the minimum 
seasonal discharge of Tuolumne River and that their use will tend to equalize 
the flow so as to meet future demands. 

It is also further agreed on the part of San Francisco that whenever, in 
the opinion of the Engineer in Charge of these reservoirs on behalf of said 
city, the volume of water on storage in the reservoirs herein applied for is in 
excess of the seasonal requirements of San Francisco, and that it is safe to do 
so, that such excess may be liberated at such times and in such amounts as 
said irrigation districts may designate: Provided that, no prescriptive or 
other right shall ever inure or attach to said districts by user or otherwise 
to the water thus liberated. 

On the part of San Francisco and the great interests of the State, the 
undersigned deprecates any statements which would make it appear that the 
great source of water flowing from the 1501 square miles of Tuolumne drain¬ 
age basin is not sufficient, when properly conserved, to more than meet all 
requirements of dependent industries; and, tending to throw doubt or dis¬ 
credit on the great water resources of this State and the value of the indus¬ 
tries dependent thereon. 

Very respectfully submitted, 

MARSDEN MANSON. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


170A 


BRIEF OF 

L. L. DENNETT, Esq., 

ON BEHALF OF 

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 

In the matter of the application of San Francisco for reservoir rights of way in Hetch-Hetchv 

V alley : 

lo the Honorable JAMES R. GARFIELD, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C. : 

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE CLAIMS OF THE MODESTO IRRIGATION 

DISTRICT. 

The Modesto Irrigation District was organized in 1887 as a public cor¬ 
poration, under the laws of the State of California. Immediately thereafter 
it employed Mr. C. E. Grunsky as engineer, to investigate the question of a 
water supply for the district, and particularly the suitability of the Stanislaus 
River for Storage Reservoirs. Various investigations were made and reports 
filed, in one of which Mr. Grunsky stated that while the normal flow of water 
ultimately might not be sufficient, yet whenever thereafter the lands within 
the district required more water, the flood waters could easily be stored and 
would furnish an abundant supply for the dry months. 

Subsequently, after selecting, upon the recommendation of Mr. Grunsky, 
the Tuolumne as the source of supply, on the 25th day of August, 1889, 
a resolution was adopted entering into an agreement with the Turlock Irri¬ 
gation District, which provided that each district should be entitled to pro 
rata share in any reservoir sites which might be established by. the other, upon 
the payment of its proportion of the expenses. 

The act under which the district is existing provides, in Section 17, that 
the use of all water required for the irrigation of the lands of districts formed 
under the provisions of the act, with the rights of way for canals and ditches, 
sites for reservoirs and all other property required in fully carrying out the 
provisions of the act is a public use, and by Section 56 the right of way is 
given, dedicated and set apart to locate, construct and maintain said works 
over and through any lands which now or may be the property of the States, 
and also, all waters and water rights belonging to the State within the district. 

It may be suggested in passing that we claim that the waters of the Tuol¬ 
umne River belonged to the State, and upon the principle of law that a grant 
of property carries with it its appurtenances, etc., there was vested in the 
State of California (or rather remained vested) the waters of the river with 
rights of way to store and conduct the same whether such water stored and so 
conducted constituted the normal flow or the flood waters. If this is so, by 
the act under which the districts are organized (and the old Mexican law) 
this right, passed (or belonged) to the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Dis¬ 
tricts, to the amount at least of the water necessary for the beneficial irrigation 
of the land included within the districts, with necessary rights of way, etc. In 
this discussion, however, I have not considered that phase of the question. 

In 1889 the districts commenced the construction of a joint dam upon the 
Tuolumne River just above La Grange for the purpose of diverting the water 
into distributing canals for the irrigation of lands within the districts. As is 
often the case, these efforts were followed by prolonged litigation, during 
which time the work was greatly delayed, but carried on more or less con¬ 
tinuously, until in 1901 the distributing system of the Turlock District was 
practically completed, and the water turned into that district and in 1903 the 
distributing system of the Modesto Irrigation District was practically com¬ 
pleted and the water distributed through that district. In each case, however, 
the water was not used to any extent until the year following. 



170B 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


The Modesto District contains approximately 82,000 acres of land, and the 
Turlock Irrigation District, 176,210 acres of land. There has been brought 
under actual irrigation approximately 60,000 acres since the water was turned 
into the districts, and of course a large area receives indirect benefit through 
water running in the canals. Practically every acre in both districts is 
capable of irrigation, and is being actually brought into a condition permitting 
irrigation as rapidly as possible. Each acre of land is paying for the water 
and in that sense is making a beneficial use thereof. The districts have 
incurred a bonded indebtedness and every acre of land is annually assessed to 
pay the interest upon these bonds, and is also liable for its proportion of the 
principal when due, in addition to its share of the cost of maintenance and 
therefore upon every possible consideration of justice is entitled to water as 
soon as it can with advantage be used. So far as limiting the rights of these 
districts by present use without regard to future needs, they stand in no 
different position that San Francisco or any other municipality except that the 
only necessity for the exrecise of the functions of a municipality by them 
arises from the necessity of such water. The right to use the necessary water 
is a necessity of their municipal existence and to that extent they are in a 
better position as claimants than an ordinary municipality which can exist 
without a municipally owned water system. 

It was recognized, as above stated, in the inception of this project, as in 
most irrigation projects, that the storage of water constituted an essential 
part of the irrigation system and would become necessary in time. It was 
only because of faith in such ultimate storage that the land was thus bur¬ 
dened with this debt. The unavoidable delay in the completion of the system 
has postponed both the possibility of the construction of reservoirs and the 
necessity thereof, but such necessity now exists. In 1905 on the 17th day of 
July, the Turlock Irrigation District was diverting 580 cubic feet per second, 
and the Modesto District 355 cubic feet per second with a prior claim by the 
La Grange Ditch of 50 second feet, which was an amount less than was re¬ 
quired for the irrigation of the land then actually under irrigation, but was 
all the water running in the river at the dam, and that year serious loss was 
occasioned by the lack of water. While the water was lower than it has been 
in some years, it was not abnormally low. As will be hereinafter shown, the 
water supply of the Tuolumne River fluctuates greatly, and no average gives 
any proper understanding of the actual supply of water. An extraordinary 
excess of water one year may be, and frequently is followed by two or three 
years of abnormally low water, so the general average will be high, while 
the actual water which can be utilized each year is very small. Most estimates 
and arguments which have been made are based upon the fallacious assumption 
that the average flow of the river can be taken as a basis of calculation. As 
will be seen from the figures hereinafter given, in the majority of years, 
after the middle of July, there is not enough water flowing in the river to 
supply one-half of the appropriation of the two districts. A lack of water 
after that time results in the loss of one or two cuttings of alfalfa, which 
means a loss per acre, under conditions which have heretofore existed, of from 
$5 to $12 for every acre of alfalfa in the district, and this means, with present 
acreage, a loss of from $120,000 to $300,000 a year from this crop alone. All 
citrus fruits and small garden products require frequent irrigation after this 
period, and their production in profitable quantities is prohibited without 
proper irrigation. This is the period when irrigation is most profitable. It is 
indeed for the very purpose of supplying such deficiency that an irrigation 
system becomes necessary. Without such so called “extra seasonal” water and 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


170C 


the possibility of supplimenting by storage the years of abnormally small 
rainfall there would be no necessity of any irrigation system. All of the ex¬ 
penditures of money heretofore made and the development which has taken 
place has been based upon an anticipation of the ultimate construction of the 
needed reservoirs and was founded upon faith in the pronounced policy of the 
Federal Government to insist upon the most beneficial use possible of the 
waters of those streams under its control, and also upon the rights granted by 
the act under which the districts are organized. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION OF SAN 

FRANCISCO. 

First. It must be conceded that these districts, and also the land contigu¬ 
ous thereto dependent upon the Tuolumne River for irrigation, both upon 
principles of justice and with a view to the most enlightened public policy, (in 
addition to any legal claims), have certain equitable prior rights to the waters 
of the Tuolumne River necessary for the beneficial irrigation of such lands. 

Storage is even now required, and such demand will be of increasing 
insistence. This necessity for storage will not be questioned. 

If it be conceded that water for domestic use is a higher purpose, and that 
water used for irrigation may properly be taken for such higher use, and if the 
claim of j3an Francisco is based upon this theory, then this proceeding is in the 
nature of the exercise of the right of eminent domain to condemn property 
put to a lower for a higher use. Before such condemnation can be made it 
must be shown as an absolute certainty that no other supply is available; that 
is before San Francisco can condemn the water supply of these lands, she must 
show that such condemnation is a necessity, and that an adequate water supply 
cannot be obtained elsewhere. It is admitted that these “extra seasonal” 
waters or some of them are necessary for the irrigation of this land, and it 
has not been shown that San Francisco cannot obtain an adequate supply else¬ 
where. Indeed, on the contrary, it appears that such supply can be obtained 
from sources in which there are no other interests to be jeopardized, and 
therefore the condition precedent to right of condemnation does not exist. 

Second. If it be conceded that at the present time there is both suffi¬ 
ciency of water and of storage reservoirs for the immediate needs of San 
Francisco, and indeed for the needs for some years to come, under a recent act 
of the Legislature of this State, various municipal corporations can unite 
together to obtain a water supply. All of the cities of the bay are so sit¬ 
uated as practically to constitute one municipality and are in the same situation 
with regard to a water supply as in San Francisco. Any supply from the 
Sierras of necessity must sooner or later be utilized by all of these cities, and 
within a very few years the figures given for the supply for San Francisco will 
be doubled, or more than doubled, and if any priorities are once conceded 
to such municipalities, it is only a question of time until it may be made to 
appear that public policy demands so great an increase of supply as (so far as 
is shown by present information) to deprive these districts of any supply of 
water whatever. 

Third. Even if it be conceded at the present time that the actual flow of 
water is adequate, there is not yet sufficient data at hand to determine as to 
the sufficiency of storage capacities. 

The Geological Survey has caused estimates to be made of fourteen of the 
most feasible reservoir sites on the drainage basin of the Tuolumne River. 
These sites have an estimated capacity of 287,261 acre feet. 


170D 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


An examination of the flow of the Tuolumne River shows that in two 
years out of seven the district would be compelled to depend almost entirely 
upon stored waters from and after the first of July, and that in two more years 
out of the same-seven, the normal flow of the river during July must of neces¬ 
sity be considerably supplemented by stored waters. 

We are entitled to guard against the smallest possible supply. After the 
month of July, for the beneficial irrigation of the lands within the districts, 
and taking into consideration the loss by seepage and evaporation, it is not un¬ 
reasonable to require the impounding of 100,000 acre feet as the very mini¬ 
mum. The land now outside of the district cannot, in ordinary years, expect 
much water from the normal flow of the river after the middle of June, and 
would require a larger proportion of stored water than the districts. If a 
very conservative estimate be made, 100,000 acre feet would be a moderate 
statement of the demands of that land, so that the very lowest conservative 
estimate of the storage requirements of the land beneficially irrigated would be 
200,000 acre feet, or an amount almost equal to the capacity of the storage 
reservoirs at present surveyed. 

These suggestions are not made for the purpose of demonstrating the 
impossibility of a sufficient supply for the bay municipalities and these dis¬ 
tricts, but to show that at the present time we have not adequate data upon 
which any proper apportionment of the water can be made. 

Fourth. In the absence of a showing that San Francisco cannot obtain, at 
reasonable cost, a proper and adequate supply of water elsewhere, we submit 
that the districts are entitled to have taken into consideration not the average 
flow of the river, but the smallest recorded flow; that is, so long as water 
can be obtained elsewhere for the bay municipalities, these districts should not 
be condemned to the risk of any shortage of water even in seasons of ab¬ 
normally small rainfall. 

According to the records kept by the Geological Survey, in the year 1898 
the total discharge in acre feet at La Grange, the location of the dam of tjae 
districts, was 854,496. 

If it be conceded that only 200,000 acres of the districts will be under irri¬ 
gation, and if the normal rainfall be taken at twelve inches (although in most 
years the rainfall is much less than that), taking into consideration seepage and 
evaporation, the land within these two districts would require a supply of 600,- 
000 acre feet from the river. If the land outside of the districts be considered 
at all, an excessively conservative and moderate estimate would place their 
demand at 300,000 acre feet, making a total requirement from the river during 
the year of 900,000 acre feet, or an amount in excess of the total discharge of 
the river in that year, even if the prior appropriation of the La Grange ditch 
be not deducted. 

It must also be recognized that a very considerable portion of the flood 
waters cannot, under present conditions, be conserved, and that a very large 
portion of the 854,496 acre feet could not be utilized. 

Admitting that this was a very unusual year, such deficiency is apt to 
happen again, and, as has been stated before in this brief, it is the possibility 
of avoiding, so far as man’s ingenuity may be able to avoid, the inequalities 
of a natural supply of water that justifies the expense of an irrigation system. 
If after all the expense and labor of a complicated and difficult irrigation 
system the lands are to be relegated to the uncertainty of water existing with¬ 
out such system, the labor will be in vain. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


170E 


CLAIMS OF T^E DISTRICTS. 

In the absence of a more careful collection of data than has been made, it 
perhaps cannot, with absolute certainty be stated that taking into consideration 
the fluctuations of the flow of the Tuolumne River there is sufficient storm or 
waste waters to supply the needs of the lands irrigable therefrom, and of the 
municipalities which would ultimately claim a supply from such river should 
it be conducted to the vicinity of San Francisco. Admitting as a working 
hypothesis, however, that such supply exists, all these districts asks is: « 

First. That a clear and distinct recognition be made (by Congressional 
grant should it be desired) of their prior rights to all waters of the river 
necessary for the beneficial irrigation of the lands included within the boun¬ 
daries thereof, whether such waters constitute the normal flow or are so-called 
waste or storm waters, so that the risk, if any, of a deficiency fall upon San 
Francisco. The amount of this water may be agreed upon. 

Second. That in any grant of reservoir sites which may be made, reser¬ 
voir sites of sufficient capacity to store the water necessary for these districts 
be reserved, or, if the supply for municipal purposes and for these irrigation 
districts be taken from the same reservoirs that the prior right of the districts 
thereto be protected by adequate acts of Congress clearly defining and per¬ 
manently fixing such rights. 

Third. It is suggested on behalf of the districts also, that while the land 
contained therein amounts to about 250,000 acres, there is adjacent to these 
districts lying upon the foot hills and between the foot hills and the Modesto 
and Turlock Irrigation Districts about 200,000 acres of land now arid or semi- 
arid, susceptible of irrigation from the Tuolumne River, and which must de¬ 
pend for its water supply upon that river. Much of this land is in the citrus 
belt, and is the most profitable and productive land in the State of California, 
and a wise public policy should protect it from being condemned to a condition 
of sterility, as it would be, should adequate provisions not be made for its 
protection. This land cannot be irrigated without storage reservoirs, as in 
most of the years the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts will take all 
of the normal flow during the period when such irrigation is desirable. 

The preservation of the use and productivity of this land is a greater pub¬ 
lic importance than the question of mere convenience of a municipal supply; 
San Francisco can go elsewhere for water; these lands cannot. 

Fourth. As the Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy sites are the most con¬ 
venient and the equitable rights of these districts is prior to any claim of San 
Francisco, it is suggested that such sites be held for the use of these districts 
and possibly for the construction by the Reclamation Service of the necessary 
dams, if the law permits, and the other sites be utilized by San Francisco. 

CONCLUSION. 

I respectfully submit that in the light of the foregoing suggestions, there 
is not sufficient information at hand to permit of intelligent action upon this 
question. Not the rights only of the respective municipal corporations con¬ 
cerned or even of the people of this generation, but the rights of generations 
of people yet unborn are involved in a proper adjustment of this question. 

If there is a sufficiency of water in the Tuolumne River to supply the 
needs of the bay cities and of the land dependent thereon for irrigation and 
such water can be properly conserved and apportioned without detriment to 


170F 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


the respective interests, and such supply is from an engineering and financial 
point of view feasible, we admit that the most enlightened public policy would 
permit of such use. 

On the other hand, no present need of San Francisco for an additional 
water supply, and no argument that at the present time that city may be the 
victim of rapacious and unscrupulous corporations desiring to prey upon her 
necessities and misfortunes by selling to her at unreasonable figures a water 
supply, should be permitted to counterbalance the rights of a great and fertile 
valley, capable of sustaining in prosperity and happiness a denser population 
than can probably be sustained anywhere else in the United States, so long 
as this particular supply is not absolutely necessary. 

In these districts, unaided by State or Federal aid, and with little assist¬ 
ance from outside capital, the farmers have taken upon themselves, at great 
personal sacrifice and expense, the construction of probably the greatest irri¬ 
gation system in actual successful operation in America, and they have done 
this with faith that under law they have a legal right to the water necessary 
for the beneficial irrigation of the lands within such districts, with necessary 
rights of way, etc., that public officials charged with the management of public 
affairs would not permit them to be deprived of either the water or the 
storage facilities necessary for the consummation of their irrigation system, 
and which in the inception thereof was recognized as an ultimate necessity. 

We must inevitably come back to one proposition; this land cannot go 
elsewhere for its water; San Francisco can go elsewhere, and it is therefore 
not a place for nicely balanced equities, or any place for considering inferior 
or superior uses of water, but we submit that the only question involved is, can 
these districts be properly protected if San Francisco be permitted to come 
to the Tuolumne River for its water supply except by legislative grants to 
these districts of prior rights to water, reservoir sites, and rights of way, 
necessary for the beneficial irrigation of the land contained within the dis¬ 
tricts? This protection has been extended where the Federal Government, at 
great expense has constructed for private owners irrigation systems, and 
why should not these districts, who have not assumed to come as suppliants 
for the charity of the government, but who have done their own work at 
their own expense, be equally protected? With this protection there can be 
no possible objection to the city of San Francisco or any other municipality 
taking any surplus water. 

In the brief on behalf of San Francisco there is neither a recognition of 
any priorities on the part of the districts nor any concession on the part of 
San Francisco. The most conceded is that if there is any storm water that 
San Francisco does not want after it has obtained the only two really desir¬ 
able reservoir sites on the river, that city may be gracious enough to release 
a little with the careful proviso, however, that we shall thereby acquire no 
right thereto. 

San Francisco may be willing to assume the role of Dives in this matter, 
but we have no desire, if it can be helped, of playing at Lazarus, at least in this 
world. We believe we are entitled legally and equitably to something more 
than the tricklings from San Francisco’s reservoirs. 

There are no insurmountable objections to determining how much stored 
water this dependent land will reasonably require as a minimum and after 
assuring to such land this minimum no reasonable objection can be raised to 


170G 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

any proper use of the surplus. Whoever assumes to use this surplus, however, 
should be compelled to take the risk, as to its existence. 

We submit this as only reasonable and just and as little as we can ask. 

Respectfully submitted, 

L. L. DENNETT, 

Attorney for Modesto Irrigation District. 


170H 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


TABLES SHOWING VARIOUS CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF SAN FRAN¬ 
CISCO, WITH FLOW OF THE TUOLUMNE AND 
CLAIMS OF THE DISTRICTS. 



Various Claims 

of San Francisco. 


Gallons 

Cubic ft. 

Cubic ft. 

Acre ft. 

Acre ft. 

per day. 

per day. 

per sec. 

per day. 

per year. 

100,000,000 

13,360,000 

155.0 

307.00 

112,000 

200,000,000 

26,720,000 

310.0 

614 

224,000 

300,000,000 

40,080,000 

465.0 

921 

336,000 

400,000,000 

53,440,000 

620.0 

1228 

448,000 


Discharge in Acre Feet per Year at 

La Grange. 


1896 . 

.1,968,100 1899 . 

.1,126,793- 

1902 . 

.1,459,385 



1,672,341 



1897 . 

.2,422,827 1900 . 

.1,573,498 

1903 . 

.1,968,955 

1898 . 

. 854,496 1901 . 

.2,538,990 

1904 . 

.2,862,378 

1905 . 

.1,440,000 





Minimum and Maximum Discharges at La Grange During July. 


1896 .960-5330 sec. ft. 

1897 .480-4840 sec. ft. 

1898 . 88- 750 sec. ft. 

1899 .331-2538 sec. ft. 

1900 .140-1873 sec. ft. 


1901 .1440-9960 sec. ft. 

1902 . 353-6550 sec. ft. 

1903 . 407-4507 sec. ft. 

1904 .1046-5530 sec. ft. 

1905 . 427-3403 sec. ft. 


Yearly Mean or Average Discharge of Tuolumne in Cubic Feet per Second. 


1896 . 

.2342 1899 . 

.2315 1902 . 

.2022 

1897 . 

.2364 1900 . 

.2160 1903 . 

.2732 

1898 . 

.1182 1901 . 

.3537 1904 . 

.3948 



1905 . 

.1995 


Appropriation Turlock-Modesto, 2250. 

Average discharge for period of ten years.2558.8 

Appropriations Modesto and Turlock.2250.0 


Excess . 308.8 




































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 170-1 

Surveyed Reservoir Sites. 

Acre Feet. 

Coffin Hollow . 2200 

Hetch-Hetchy.107426 

Granite Lake . 3300 

Hulls Meadows . 2160 

Tilden Canyon . 

Erraras Meadows . 1070 

Lake Eleanor . 47290 

Cherry Valley . 2500 

Lake Vernon . 21080 

Bells Meadows . 6300 

Big Meadows . 11000 

Big Tuolumne Meadows . 43185 


Total.247511 

Additional (unsurveyed) . 14250 

25500 


287261 

Hetch-Hetchy.107426 

Eleanor . 47290 


Total.154716 

All other sites (12).132545 




































; • •• ■- r 

■ ' (I 








s 






















SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


171 


San Francisco, California, July 27th, 1907. 

EXHIBIT “A” 

(Copy of the brief submitted at last previous hearing in July, 1903). 

. Before the Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, Secretary of the Interior. 

IN RE APPLICATION OF JAMES D. PHELAN AND OTHERS 
For certain reservoir sites, right of way, etc., in the Yosemite National Park. 

Brief of Turlock Irrigation District on Behalf of Itself and Modesto Irriga¬ 
tion District in Opposition to Said Application. 

Turlock Irrigation District Respectfully Submits the Following: 

The people of these districts became aware, in March last, for the first 
time, of the fact of such applications, through newspaper reports that they 
had been denied, but that a rehearing had been granted; on learning which 
we immediately telegraphed a protest, following this with a short written 
protest. This hearing was had without further appearance or hearing on the 
part of the Districts, they having neither the time nor ilie opportunity for 
further presentation of their claims at that time. Subsequently, both Dis¬ 
tricts, having taken action in the matter, they were on further application 
granted an opportunity to be heard, and now present this brief pursuant to 
such permission; premising it, however, with the explanatory statement that, 
never having been served with any papers in the matter, and not having been 
able to see any of the applications or the documents presented in support 
thereof, they are largely in the dark, and are compelled to assume or take 
for granted much that might throw light on the subject. 

As we understand the applications, however, there are several on behalf 
of private enterprises, and one or more purporting to be on behalf of or in 
the interests of, the City of San Francisco, the applications being of greater 
or less scope, but each directed towards securing from the Government a 
gift of valuable rights in the waters of the Tuolumne River or privileges of 
carrying the same through the National Reservation; the most specific of said 
prayers being directed towards securing to the applicants the storage priv¬ 
ileges at the Hetch Hetcliy and Lake Eleanor sites and the privilege of 
carrying the waters there stored through the National Park, the intent, pur¬ 
pose and effect of such applications being, as naively stated by C. E. Grunsky, 
in a letter to one of said applicants to be, “shut out all other persons from 
developing water which you propose to store .’’ (Grunsky’s letter to Phelan). 

We cannot think that the applications on behalf of the private enterprises 
need receive more than a passing notice. While they may (or may not) be 
meritorious in themselves; they are so obviously antagonistic to and obstruc¬ 
tive to, great and paramount public interests that we cannot think that an 
officer charged with the administration of so great a public trust, will seri¬ 
ously consider the proposition of granting such applications. As will be 
noted hereafter, the injury to our interests, should these applications be 
granted, lies not so much in what the applicants will do or not likely to do, 
but in the fact that the granting of the applications will prevent us, or the 
Government from doing wdiat ought to be done for the public good. 



172 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Assuming, which we deny, that the application or applications purporting 
to be made on behalf of or in the interests of San Francisco, are entitled to 
be considered as applications by that city; the matter stands in this position: 

The applicants ask the Government to make them a free gift of the 
storage waters or the power to use them, of the Tuolumne River; these stor¬ 
age waters are vitally essential to us, who are riparian to said river and who 
have expended millions of dollars in the completion of a water system, de¬ 
pendent for its success on the use of said storage waters, a system developed 
into practical consummation by long years of effort under a law for the irriga¬ 
tion of the semi-arid lands of the State; while the project of the applicants 
has its being, only in the partially developed plans of promoters whose 
theories have little more than a visionary existence. This dream involves the 
impounding of the waters of the Tuolumne, at a point 150 or 200 miles from 
the City, carrying it over many miles of almost unexplored mountain preci¬ 
pices, piping it over the original stream and over many more miles of un¬ 
known engineering obstacles, over vast plains, great rivers, mountain passes, 
and ocean inlets, finally to use it by a municipality which already has a water 
supply and which has never yet gone so far as to declare its intention to en¬ 
gage in the enterprise, or any such enterprise as the promoters suggest. 

The issue is thus presented, whether the officers and agents of the 
Government will, by the stroke of the pen, paralyze the young and vigorously 
developing irrigation enterprise of these irrigation districts, to further the 
unformed plans of this far distant City, or will they wait for some more 
defined scheme of storage to be developed. 

Without conceding except that such concession may be made for the pur¬ 
poses of the matter now before this Department, that San Francisco or any 
interest similarly situated, could in any event, take from us the privileges 
of utilizing and using the waters that may be stored on the Tuolumne River. 

We contend that the Government should retain the control which it now 
has over the storage sites on said river and its tributaries, and the rights of 
way and privileges necessary to make such storage available; that it should 
develop such storage on broad lines and in accordance with the policy sanc¬ 
tioned by law and the plans of the Department; should plan and erect such 
works as will enable such stored waters to bring the greatest good to the 
greatest number; and should then distribute such waters to those who may be 
entitled to them, under such principles and rules as may then be found in ac¬ 
cordance with justice, law and equity. This will not and can not be done 
should any of the storage sites or rights of way now pass into the control of 
any special interest. In such case, it would be the first care of any, obtaining 
such control, to take such measures as would enable them to forestall and 
defeat any future attempts to develop such storage, either by the Govern¬ 
ment or any other interest. 

The irrigation of arid, or so-called semi-arid, lands has come to be recog¬ 
nized as a matter of great National concern, and this matter is largely under 
the care of this Department. For many years, it has, under the law, had this 
matter, and especially the matter of water storage, under its special care. 
Largely owing to the facts developed by the investigations by that Depart¬ 
ment, Congress, about one year ago, appropriated the proceeds of the sale 
and disposal of public lands in sixteen states and territories to the construc¬ 
tion of irrigation works. Plans and estimates for such worits for the storage 
of the waters of the Tuolumne at the Hetch Hetchy site are fully set forth 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


173 


in the 21st Annual Report of the Geological Survey, at pages 449-466 and the 
relation of such storage to the Turlock and Modesto districts is there quite 
fully considered. 

Turlock and Modesto districts received special notice in Water Supply 
and Irrigation Papers, No. 19, of said Department, at pages 44-50, to which 
articles we specially refer. Irrigation has also been quite fully investigated 
and reports thereof made elsewhere in the reports of said Department and 
also in the census reports, to which we refer for data in support of the state¬ 
ments herein. 

Irrigation has also been the subject of much legislation in the State of 
California, and the subject of much investigation by the central as well as 
the subordinate departments of her government for many years. 

California stands easily first among all these states and territories in the 
number of irrigated farms, the value of crops produced by irrigation, the 
amount invested in irrigation works, the value of lands irrigated, and second 
to but one state in the area under irrigation. (Yol. VI., 12tli Census, see also 
21st Geol. Surv. p. 28). 

These districts will add one-fifth to the irrigated area and one-sixth to 
the cost of irrigation works in California. These facts are cited to call atten¬ 
tion to the importance of the interests of these districts; in their relation 
to the State and National Governments and to the serious results of any 
action tending to impair the success or efficiency of this great irrigation 
system. 

The necessity and advantages of wa'er storage for irrigation in Cali¬ 
fornia has been recognized in almost every well considered paper which has 
been published cn the subject. 

Wm. Ham. Hall (then State Engineer, now appearing for some of these 
claimants), in his report to the California Legislature, A. D. 1880, page 102, 
said, 11 the storage of water * * * is even a greater necessity than the ad¬ 
justment of crops * * * and the regulation of the time of watering * * 

C. E. Gronsky, also now appearing for an applicant for these storage 
sites, has written a number of papers appearing in the Geological Survey 
reports, notably on the subject of irrigation in California, and particularly 
on the water supply and irrigation from the Tuolumne and similar streams; 
was employed by Modesto Irrigation District, before planning or determin¬ 
ing upon its irrigation works ‘ 4 to make such examination and surveys as 
were necessary to determine the best method of supplying water to the lands 
of the Modesto Irrigation District. ’ ’ He performed that service and made 
his report on October 22d, 1887. In the course of his duties, he examined 
the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers, and the conditions of the water supply 
of the Tuolumne with particular reference to the wants and claims of the 
Turlock Irrigation District. He ought, then, to be well qualified to speak 
on the subject and he admits at the hearing of these applications in April 
last, and speaking of these districts, that, “that is one of the most important 
valleys in the whole state / 1 and again referring to his employment by the 
district as above noted, “we recognized the desirability of mountain storage 
for irrigation purpose, ” and again “it will be desirable for those districts 
to ultimately go to the mountains and to ask to do what we are now doing. ” 

On the 9th day of August, 1890, these two districts made a contract 
respecting the construction of a joint dam, now known as the La Grange Dam, 
and providing for the division and use of water therefrom and so important 


174 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


was the question of stored water then considered, that it was therein pro¬ 
vided that ‘ 1 in case either district shall acquire any additional water rights, 
privileges or rights in stored water above the dam, the other district shall 
have the privilege of sharing in such property ’ ’—on terms fixed. 

Without entering into further details, it may be taken as either settled 
or conceded: that irrigation of such lands as are embraced in these two dis¬ 
tricts is a matter of great National, as well as State, concern; that storage 
of water is of prime necessity to the success of such irrigation; that it is the 
policy of the Government to foster and aid such irrigation; that the storage 
sites and the privileges connected herewith, asked by these applicants, are 
and are known to be as important and valuable as, if not more so than, any 
other; that they are still under the control of the Government and may be 
developed by it for the benefit of the lands embraced in the Turlock and 
Modesto Irrigation Districts, and that such development has been contem¬ 
plated and planned by the Government; that such development and the use 
of water so stored is vital to the full success of such irrigation; that these 
districts have been organized under laws for that purpose, to carry out, in the 
best manner, such irrigation, and have well performed the purpose of their 
organization so far as they have progressed, have planned, constructed and 
completed a system of irrigation, most notable for its magnitude, perfection 
and fitness for its purpose, that purpose being to irrigate the greater and bet¬ 
ter portion of the lands irrigable from the Tuolumne, have done this at a 
great expenditure of time, money and effort, and upon the faith of the hope 
and belief that these storage privileges would in due time be applied to their 
benefit; and that the granting of these applications would work most serious 
disaster to this enterprise, now just coming into successful operation. Such 
being the facts, what good reason can be urged in support of these applica¬ 
tions which are in the interests of almost unformed projects, which may or 
may not develop into definite form, which have no claim on the bounty 
asked, which are not dependent on these particular privileges for their suc¬ 
cess, and which cannot point to any clear and well defined line of Govern¬ 
mental policy as a basis for the kind of aid they seek ? 

While the general statements and arguments above may be sufficient for 
the presentation of our position, it may be well to state some of the facts, 
referred to, as well as some additional facts, more in detail, to refer to some 
of the arguments which we understand have been presented in support of 
these applications, and to make some additional suggestions regarding points 
having more or less bearing on the subject. For convenience, the facts will 
be generally stated in general terms and in round numbers, intending them 
to be understood as being practically correct and not strictly accurate. Most 
of these facts are matters of public record or general notoriety, and are here 
stated for the purposes of convenient reference rather than as necessary in¬ 
formation. 

Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District were each 
organized in 1887, under a law passed in that year, the distinctive features 
of which are: that the districts are public corporations, managed and con¬ 
trolled by officers elected by the people, the works constructed by the people, 
the works constructed by the proceeds of the sale of bonds, to be paid by 
taxation of the land in proportion to value, the water to be appurtenant to 
the land and distributed to the tax-payer in proportion to the tax paid. 

This law, while somewhat of an experiment, is based on principles of 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


175 


broad, and far-reaching public policy, and has met with approval of the 
courts and the legislatures subsequent to the one which enacted it, and has 
justified the opinion of the supreme court of the state, expressed in the case 
of Turlock Irrigation District vs. Williams, 76 Cal. p. 369, that “it is an ex¬ 
tensive and far-reaching plan, by which the general public may be vastly 
benefited, and the legislature acted with good judgment in enacting it.” 

The two districts, while having independent organizations and distribut¬ 
ing systems, in their combined action form practically one irrigation system, 
for the irrigation of 260,000 acres of land, lying practically in one body, be¬ 
ing most of the level land between the Merced and San Joaquin on the 
south and the Stanislaus on the north, the two districts being separated from 
each other by the Tuolumne, and taking their water therefrom from a joint 
dam about two miles above La Grange, known as the La Grange dam. 

The districts have expended in the construction of this system, the pro¬ 
ceeds of the sale of $2,500,000 in bonds, in addition to which, they have paid 
in taxes, expended in preliminary work, interest, etc., another million of 
dollars. The works are of a magnitude and character exciting the favorable 
comment of all who are familiar with them. H. M. Wilson, after a full ex¬ 
amination of the Turlock system, in the course of his duties in the govern¬ 
ment service, characterized it as “ the best example of American irrigation 
practice,” and on page 133 of his work on irrigation engineering, speaks of 
it as “A typical American canal alignment.” The dam is referred to on 
page 45, Water Supply and Irrigation Papers. U. S. Deo. Sur. No. 19, as 
being “Noteworthy as the highest overflow dam ever built on a large river.” 

This dam contained 40,000 yards of rubble masonry, laid with 30,000 bar¬ 
rels of cement and cost $550,000. From it, water is taken, on the Turlock 
side, through a tunnel 600 feet long through solid rock, to a canal having a 
capacity of 1,500 second feet, and on the Modesto side to a canal of about 
half that capacity. Each main canal is about 25 miles long to the boundary 
or the district, the Turlock canal dividing into two main laterals about 35 
miles long and each system having seven distributing laterals aggregating 
over one hundred miles in length, each; in the Turlock system, there are four 
rock tunnels, aggregating one-half mile in length, one flume over one-quarter 
miles in length and containing over 200,000 feet of lumber, and numerous 
others of scarcely less magnitude, a concrete dam and waste-way 350 feet 
long and 30 feet high, one cut three-quarters mile long and 80 feet deep, 
from which 350,000 yards of earth and gravel and hard-pan were removed, 
while other cuts, fills, rock walls, flumes, trestles, bridges, drops, gates, waste- 
ways and other structures involved millions of yards of work and millions of 
feet of lumber, the whole making a complete system of irrigation engineer¬ 
ing of such a character that no work on the subject is now considered com¬ 
plete without a description of it, and the works on the Modesto side are 
similar in character and only less in magnitude and difficulty. These items 
are specially noted because there seems to be a disposition on the part of the 
applicants here to minimize and to some extent disparage these irrigation 
systems, and their importance is worthy of consideration when it sought to 
take from them something essential to their efficiency and on the faith of 

which so much labor has been expended. 

The districts comprise a body of agricultural land, practically homogen¬ 
ous in character and admirably situated and adapted to irrigation. It has 
long been settled and cultivated, mostly in unirrigated crops, and yielded 


176 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


ample returns from such cultivation, but some years since this method of 
farming became largely unremunerative from causes which need not be de¬ 
tailed. The effects of irrigation and the lack of it are illustrated in compar¬ 
ing Fresno county with Stanislaus. Both are situated in the great San Joa¬ 
quin Valley and have similar conditions of soil, climate, etc., the advantage 
being in favor of Stanislaus. Fresno began the practice of irrigation, some¬ 
what extensively about twenty years ago ; while Stanislaus has not been en¬ 
gaged in it to any considerable extent till quite recently, irrigation com- 
mencng in Turlock district about two years ago. The census shows the fol¬ 


lowing: 

Population of— 1870. 1880. 1890. 1900. 

Fresno . 6,333 9,478 32,026 44,226 

Stanislaus . 6,499 8,751 10,040 9,550 


Fresno population 1890 includes Madera, which was taken from it. 

Thus while Stanislaus, starting ahead of Fresno, kept almost even pace 
with her until irrigation commenced, stood almost still in the next ten years, 
while Fresno gained 350 per cent, and actually lost in population in the next 
ten years, while Fresno gained more than the total population of Stanislaus. 
That Stanislaus will benefit by irrigation in a similar manner to other locali¬ 
ties that have practiced it under similar conditions, there is no reason to 
doubt. Though it has scarcely commenced, the effect is already plainly seen 
in rapidly increasing population, larger attendance in schools, increased pos¬ 
tal receipts, freight and express shipments, real estate transfers, home and 
business building, railroad and other travel, and more especially in the hope¬ 
fulness and confidence which marks progress and prosperity. 

The larger part of these irrigation districts is in Stanislaus county and 
about one-half of the agricultural portion of of the county is in them, so that 
what is true of the county in the respects noted is true of the districts. The 
county is about one hundred miles from tide water, and is traversed by four 
main lines of railroad and has another line extending from it to the moun¬ 
tains, has also the advantage of two navigable streams, has all the facilities 
of modern civilized life highly developed, is well settled with progressive, 
intelligent and industrious people, and is now, with irrigation commenced and 
its prospects bright, once more a prosperous, productive, progressive and 
growing community. 

These conditions are rapidly becoming generally known throughout the 
state, the nation and the world at large, resulting in constantly and rapidly 
increasing immigration, investment and development in the county, fostered 
and encouraged to a very large degree by the apparent assurance of an ample 
and assured supply of water for irrigation, and this assurance is based, to a 
great degree, on the belief that, as irrigation extends and increases, the pe¬ 
culiarly advantageous facilities for water storage on the Tuolumne will be 
available to the irrigation districts. The disastrous effect on this prosperous 
state of affairs, should these applications be granted, is self-evident. With¬ 
out the water which may be stored at these reservoir sites, from one to four 
months of the year will witness a shortage of water in these districts, and to 
that extent, the beneficial results of irrigation therein will be impaired. It 
matters not that the utilization of these sites by the grantees is extremely im¬ 
probable; with these applications granted, the anticipation of the benefits 
from he water that may be stored at these sites, to us, is at once placed 




SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


177 


under a cloud and to that extent we are injured, no matter what the ulti¬ 
mate result may be. 

We have not thought it necessary or proper to urge our claims to these 
storage privileges to the exclusion of all others; but if the Government con¬ 
cludes that it will not develop these storage privileges, for the benefit of all 
who should share in their advantages, but leave the interested parties to 
undertake such storage for themselves then we submit and claim, that as 
against any others, w r e have the first and better right, and ask that we be 
granted the use and benefit of the storage sites and the rights of way under 
consideration. 

The plausible claim of some of the applicants that they will not divert 
any water from the river, but w r ill store flood waters, return them to the 
river, and in so far benefit us, is met by the obvious fact that it is made for 
the purpose of obtaining control of storage privileges, the proper use of 
which is vital to our interests, and if such control once falls into the hands 
of those who have only a special and limited interest to subserve, proper de¬ 
velopment and use of such storage cannot be anticipated. 

The further claim that we should rely on the Stanislaus or the Merced 
for water is unequally untenable when it is considered, first, that our irriga¬ 
tion systems are based entirely on a water supply from the Tuolumne, and to 
undertake to use water from the other rivers would involve a great and 
unnecessary expense, and the suggestion comes with poor grace from those 
who have no sort of reason to look to the Tuolumne for a water supply, un¬ 
less perhaps it be the fact that what they hope to get from the Tuolumne is 
asked as a bounty from the Government, while what they might have in 
numerous other places, more obviously available and adapted to their, pur¬ 
pose, might require payment of the reasonable value of the privileges sought; 
secondly, as stated by State Engineer Hall, on page 79 of his report above 
referred to, a comprehensive view of the water supplies and irrigable lands 
of the San Joaquin Valley shows that “the Stanislaus waters should all go 
out northward, and the Merced waters all go to the south, leaving the dis¬ 
tricts between, to the Tuolumne to be taken out on both sides.” 

The fact that San Francisco has available to her should she ever decide 
to secure municipal water works, many other sources of supply, some at least 
equally advantageous and more obviously applicable to her needs, is so well 
known that a mere reference to that fact is all that is needed. The Sacra¬ 
mento, for example, carries at all times, many times the amount of water that 
the Tuolumne does, and could supply San Francisco’s utmost possible needs 
without the result being noticeable. Why should she wish to come to the 
Tuolumne unless for the reason that the Government has valuable storage 
sites on that river, and a free gift of them would be a most desirable thing. 

The applicants urge that they intend to impound flood or waste water 
only ,and that they will not diminish the flow of the river at any time when 
its flow is insufficient to supply our needs. 

But it is these very waters, or the means of conserving them for at time 
of scarcity that is of vital importance to us. The applicants ask the privi¬ 
lege of controlling one-third of the watershed of the Tuolumne, and that third 
of more value, considered as a source of supply for the time when water is 
most needed, than the other two-thirds. This part of the watershed is in 
the high Sierras, where nature conserves and stores, by means of snow, for¬ 
ests and soil, the winter rainfall and distributes it through a considerable 


178 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


part of the year when no rain or snow is falling. The natural conservation 
is now controlled by the Government, and we claim should be retained by it 
as a trust. Let its control pass into the hands of others, what assurance can 
we, or any interested, have that our rights will be respected or considered? 
It is stated that San Francisco uses 30,000,000 gallons of water per day; as¬ 
suming that provision should be made for ten times as much, and that she 
would have to rely on stored water for 60 days of the year, she would re¬ 
quire but 18,000,000,000 gallons or 50,640 acre feet of stored water which 
would be furnished by a dam at Hetch Hetchy, about 100 feet high. (21st 
Ann. Rep. Geol. Surv. p. 451). The canals of these districts would carry that 
amount of water in 12 days, while the water stored by a dam 210 feet high 
(176,547 acre feet) would supply them nearly 40 days. Such a dam is ad¬ 
mitted to be a practicable and a proper one to build at that point for the 
proper storage of water. Is it not evident that neither San Francisco nor 
any of these applicants would ever store water to supply the needs which 
should be supplied by these sites, while the Government can, and will if it 
carries out the policy and plans already outlined by it, so store such waters, 
especially if the Lake Eleanor site is utilized, that every present and pros¬ 
pective want of all whose interests should be considered will be amply sup¬ 
plied? 

For convenience of reference, we tabulate below some of the data re¬ 
ferred to above; the water supply for 1879-84 being taken from Cal. Eng. 
Rep. Physical Data, p. 420, and for 95-7 from No. 19 U. S. Geol. Surv., p. 41, 
being stated in nearest hundreds, disregarding less than 50 feet; and the 
other data from various recognized sources. 


Mean Monthly Discharge of the Tuolumne River in Second Feet Per Day. 



1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

1895 

1896 

1897 

Januarv . 


4 

29 

rr 

l 

7 

4 

48 

31 

12 

February . 

. 19 

6 

68 

6 

5 

5 

39 

12 

52 

March. 

. 28 

8 

29 

22 

13 

65 

32 

27 

40 

April . 

. 46 

71 

63 

35 

33 

74 

58 

36 

77 

May. 


104 

73 

75 

82 

74 

118 

52 

119 

June . 

. 71 

141 

52 

80 

65 

82 

92 

116 

57 

July . . . .. 

. 198 

76 

20 

27 

16 

65 

38 

41 

22 

August. 

. 2 

12 

4 

6 

5 

16 

8 

6 

2 

September. 


1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

6 

6 

1 

October. 


1 

1 

9 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

November . 

. 1 

• • • 

2 

6 

3 

no data 

3 

12 

8 

December. 

. 9 

11 

6 

3 

3 

no data 

3 

10 

11 


Capacity of Turlock and Modesto canals, 2,250 sec. ft., equals about 
4,500 acre feet per day, or 135,000 acre feet per month. 

Capacity of Hetch Hetchy reservoir, dam 150 feet, 107,426 A. ft. 
Capacity of Lake Eleanor reservoir, dam 50 feet, 40,000 A. ft. 

Capacity of Hetch Hetchy reservoir, dam 210 feet, 176,547 A. ft. 
Irrigation in California, 1899: 

No. Farms. Acres. Value Crops. Cost of Works. 
25,611 1,293,366 $32,970,361 $19,181,610 

Modesto and Turlock Dists. 260,000 3 500 000 

And if irrigation gives similar 

results . 7,000,000 
















SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


179 


In conclusion we desire to say that we have no desire to exclude any 
other person, corporation or municipality from enjoying the full benefits that 
may be reaped from developing the water storage of our State to its full 
capacity, so long as it does not interfere with our rights and privileges, and 
we urge our claims for the sole purpose of preventing, if possible, what we 
believe to be a serious and dangerous attack upon them. If it meets the 
views of the Department, we should be glad to have it develop these storage 
privileges in a way which will enable all to share in their use; but if that 
cannot be done, we respectfully urge that the Government should retain con¬ 
trol of them, or if they are to be granted to any one, that we have the first 
and best right and claim to such bounty. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

By P. J. HAZEN, 

Its Agent and Attorney. 


EXHIBIT “B.” 

(Containing letters relating to compromise). 

Modesto, Calif., August 4, 1907. 

Marsden Manson, C. E., 

801 Union Trust Bldg., San Francisco, California: 

Dear Sir:—I am in receipt of yours of the second of this month, together 
with your proposed brief to be submitted to Secretary Garfield. I am writ¬ 
ing this, more as an informal and personal communication than an official 
one, since it seems, under all the circumstances, to be proper to “ clear the 
atmosphere, ’ ’ as Mr. Phelan expresses it, before proceeding further in the 
matter. In doing this, I wish it to be clearly understood that whatever I 
may say, or may have heretofore said, appearing to question the action or 
attitude of yourself, Mr. Phelan, Mr. Grunsky or anyone else urging the 
supposed claims or desires of San Francisco, is meant to be understood as 
speaking from the facts as they appear, and not as questioning the motives, 
intentions or personal status of the parties. 

You say: “this matter can remain in your hands for consideration,” 
etc. I am not quite clear what is meant by that; what matter is to be con¬ 
sidered, or what consideration it is expected we may make of it. One pur¬ 
pose of this letter, or rather the discursiveness of it, which I fear it may 
seem to have, is to arrive at a clear understanding, between us, if possible, 
of just what “matter” we are considering. To get at that, it is perhaps 
proper for me to state the situation, as I understand it. I, as the attorney for 
Turlock Irrigation District, represent it, and am also specially appointed by 
its Board of Directors to so represent it in all matters concerning the storage 
sites on the Tuolumne River, which is the source of supply for the irrigation 
of that district, for which irrigation it was organized and now exists. While 
I may have occasion, incidentally, to refer to the claims of Modesto Irriga¬ 
tion District, whose position is largely the same as ours, I have no official 
authority to speak as its representative. 

You, as I am now informed for the first time, have been appointed by 
the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, by resolution of August 1st, 1907, 
and are authorized “to represent this city in the matter of making such ar¬ 
gument to the Secretary of the Interior, written or otherwise, as he (you) 


180 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


may deem necessary, in favor of said Secretary authorizing rights of way 
and reservoir sites for the furnishing of a water supply of San Prancisco. ’ 

This “argument,” as I understand it, results from the following condi¬ 
tions: In 1901, James D. Phelan, as well as other parties, made applications 
to the then Secretary of the Interior, Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, for reservoir 
sites and rights of way in the Yosemite National Park. Those applications 
were denied, and upon a rehearing thereof, at which our contentions were 
presented by briefs, were again denied. Efforts were afterwards made, by 
application to President Roosevelt, to have the lands upon which said reser¬ 
voir sites were situated, taken from the National Park and placed in the 
forest reserve. This was also denied. Another effort was made by which 
was then attempted by Act of Congress, to have the reservoir sites granted 
to San Francisco. This also failed. Other applications were made for these 
reservoir sites, which were denied on the ground that they would interfere 
with the Tuolumne River project (which will be referred to hereafter). 

The Board of Supervisors of San Francisco then declared by resolution 
that this source of supply was unavailable and practically abandoned it. The 
next we hear of “the matter’’ is, that Secretary Garfield is considering the 
question of reopening the consideration of the decision of his predecessor, 
presumably on the ground that that decision was not based on valid legal 
grounds as might appear from the opinion of the Attorney-General obtained 
during the course of proceedings through application to the President. At 
no stage of these proceedings has Turlock Irrigation District, the interest 
most vitally affected, ever been recognized in any way, until having obtained 
outside information as to what was being done, we insisted on being heard. 

At this point, on application to the Secretary, we were informed that we 
would be given a hearing on July 24th, 1907, at 8:30 p. in., presumably on 
the question as to whether or not the hearing of these applications w T ould be 
“Reopened.” We were not informed where this hearing would be had, but 
by diligent inquiry discovered that the Secretary would be in San Francisco 
on that date. I and others interested arrived in your city on that day about 
noon, but though in communication with the Hon. Secretary, through his 
secretaries from time to time, did not ascertain, till a few moments before 
the time appointed, where this hearing was to be had, and then got such in¬ 
formation indirectly. We then found that the hearing at the rooms of the 
Board of Supervisors of San Francisco and under the auspices of its Mayor, 
was not, as to whether this “matter” should be reopened, but as to some 
“matter,” the hearing of which had already been “reopened,” without no¬ 
tice to us. We were, however, also informed by the Secretary, that no action 
would be taken by him until we had an opportunity to be heard; and though 
a good deal was said by various parties, the net result was, as I understood 
it, that you, representing San Francisco, should within ten days, present to 
the Secretary, in the form of a brief, your claims and everything on which 
you relied, serving the same on us, and that we should have thirty days in 
which to reply thereto and that pending these presentations we should en¬ 
deavor to arrive at an amicable arrangement of whatever differences there 
might be between us. You may remember that, having secured this decision 
by the Secretary, I did not engage in the discussion which then took place. 

I did this because I understood that such discussion would be informal and 
that the decision of the Secretary would be based entirely on the formal 
presentation which it was then arranged should be thereafter made. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


181 


It was then and there stated, in response to an inquiry by the Secretary, 
that the proceedings should be stenographically reported, but I am informed 
by Mayor Taylor, who seemed to be in charge of the meeting, that this was 
not the case, lienee I have to rely on my memory for tbe facts then taking 
place. Before coming to the actual 1 ‘ matter ’ ’ in hand, let me attempt to 
remove an impression which, it seems to me, your people have as to our posi¬ 
tion on this question. That position was stated by me in a letter to Mr. 
Grunsky, who then occupied much the same relation to San Francisco which 
you now occupy, under date of June 3rd, 1903, was substantially affirmed in 
my brief before the then Secretary of the Interior, July 6tli of that year, and 
has never been materially changed, and is, in brief, this: that we are per- 
pectly willing to discuss this matter in an amicable spirit, and if possible, 
arrive at a reasonable solution'of it, and, as I think that I stated in your 
presence at the conference in San Francisco, have no doubt but what such 
amicable adjustment can be reached by persons authorized to act for both 
parties when they fully understand the facts affecting the situation. 

The first question which arises to my mind is: What do you ask? One 
answer comes from the informal discussions which have formed so large a 
part of the presentation of the ‘ 1 matter ’ ’ mainly through the public prints, 
that is the privilege of using the flood and waste waters of the Tuolumne. 
That privilege, from my point of view, need not be discussed, as it and the 
question whether or not such suggested use would in any way interfere with 
our interests, is not yet a material question. The other answer, coming from 
the record, is, that you want, in some way to control the storage sites at 
Hetch-Hetcliy and Lake Eleanor. Our contention remains as it has been 
from the outset of the controversy between us, that these storage sites, now 
in control of the Government, should so remain, as a trust, till such time as 
it, or some other party, is prepared to utilize them on such broad and com¬ 
prehensive lines as shall properly subserve the interests of all who have an 
interest in them, of which we are conceded to be one of such parties. 

Another point, before coming to the “ matter ” in hand or to be now 
considered: Almost, if not quite, uniformly, it is asserted by those claiming 
to represent San Francisco, that it is intended to use only flood or waste 
waters and that our rights will in no way be interfered with and that there 
is an ample supply of water in the Tuolumne for both parties; and it is fre¬ 
quently asserted that we have been and are ‘ 1 obstructing ’ ’ San Francisco 
by a “dog in the manger ” policy. In the line of my official duty as the 
representative of the people depending on this river for their irrigation wa¬ 
ter, I have perhaps stated our contentions on this subject more often and 
more fully than has any other person; but I think I have never claimed that 
there was not an ample supply of water which may be furnished by this river, 
when its supply is properly conserved and used, to meet any and all demands 
which may reasonably be made upon it; I have never been unwise enough to 
question the right of any person to use unused water, when such use does not 
interfere with the rights of others; nor have I felt it necessary to discuss the 
prospective rights and privileges of those seeking a municipal water supply, 
as against our people who have claims mainly for irrigation purposes, deem¬ 
ing it best to leave those matters to be adjusted when the question arises. 
On the other hand, I have felt compelled, from time to time to oppose certain 
applications or proceedings, as a matter of self-protection; which applica¬ 
tions or proceedings have tended as they appear to us, not so much to the 


182 


/ 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


utilization by San Francisco, of the flood or waste waters of the Tuolumne, 
as to obtain control of certain storage privileges which we deem necessaiy 
for us and to which we feel we had at least an equitable claim. 

And in this connection, permit me to add, as I attempted to explain to 
you at the San Francisco meeting, that while you claim to concede our rights, 
you ignore us in all your efforts to obtain control of these reservoir sites until 
such time as we obtain a hearing where your applications are made. We ob¬ 
ject to having you decide what our rights are and how they shall be pro¬ 
tected. Beyond that, I think you will find that we have always been willing 
to meet you more than half way; as I then stated to you, our last official 
action was to appoint a committee to confer with you and your last official 
action was to abandon the Tuolumne as a source of supply. Next we find 
you, without, as I claim, any authority to take such action, and without no¬ 
tice to us, seeking to have the Secretary of the Interior reverse the ruling 
of his predecessor; hearing of which we obtain, as we understood it, by his 
appointment to hear us as to whether he would re-open the matter; instead 
of which, we are confronted with the statement that he had already decided 
to re-open it, and at a meeting of your Board of Supervisors, under the 
auspices of your Mayor, the Secretary being the guest of those advocating 
your claims, necessarily we were compelled to “obstruct’’ action, so far as 
we were able, till such time as it could be taken up in a regular and author¬ 
ized way. This being, as heretofore intimated, that you should present your 
claim and its basis in the form of a brief to be served on us and then pre¬ 
sented to the Secretary, to which we should have thirty days to reply, in 
the meantime attempting to come to an amicable understanding, and we now 
have your brief, with the letter to which I am now replying. I come back 
to the question, “what is the question to be submitted to the Secretary, and 
what are we to consider?’’ 

I take it, from a cursory glance over the papers which you send me, that 
the main thing you ask is, (see page 3 of your brief), the grant of the appli¬ 
cation for reservoir sites at Hetch Hetcliy and Lake Eleanor, made by James 
D. Phelan in 1901 and denied by the former Secretary of the Interior in 1903. 

Until informed by documents accompanying your present brief that Mr. 
Phelan has assigned his rights under those applications to San Francisco, we 
have had no reason, from the record, to know that if such application were 
granted he could not use them as any other person might, for any purpose, 
the same as the numerous other applicants for similar privileges. While, as 
I have said, not questioning Mr. Phelan’s motives or intentions, we feel that 
it is important, before consenting to any action which is likely to withdraw 
these sites, so valuable to us, that it be based on more regular and official 
action than as yet appears. Suppose these applications are granted, even 
upon the conditions which you state, what assurance have we that you, the 
City of San Francisco, will comply with these conditions? I say it with all 
due respect, and without wishing to be contentious, that I can as yet see no 
substantial basis for your claim to be recognized as an applicant for these 
reservoir sites. This brings up the question, what is the basis of your claim? 
All that I can find is that, under certain charter provisions which you quote, 
but which, since such action was taken, have been repealed, you obtained 
from your engineer, “plans and estimates of the cost, of water works,” and 
a report favoring works with the Tuolumne River as its source of supply. 
Your present charter requires, as a prerequisite of such, the first step towards 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


183 


\ 


the acquisition of a municipal water supply, an official determination that 
the public interest demands it. Pardon me for saying, that it seems to me, 
until such determination is made, you have no status for so far as dealing 
with the Government or with any interested party is concerned. Quoting 
from your statement as reported on page 334 of the proceedings of the Com¬ 
monwealth Club of California, a copy of which has kindly been handed me 
by Mr. Phelan, “The acquisition of the Tuolumne as a source of water sup¬ 
ply has been characterized as impracticable and visionary. Under the exist¬ 
ing conditions, there is full justification for these opinions. ” 

I think probably that that “ characterization ’ ’ was made by me, and 
based on the obvious facts, recognized by yourself, I take it, that then, and 
I may say, up to the present time, it does not appear that the acquisition by 
your city of a municipal water supply has any legal existence, and it is still 
problematical when, if ever, it will utilize these sites, if the privilege is 
given it. You are quoted as saying before the Commonwealth Club, on the 
13th of last February, 1 ‘ that it would take at least a year to make the nec¬ 
essary studies and comparisons.’’ Your people admit that the only estimate 
which you have made of the cost of the suggested system, $40,000,000, 
“would probably be $50,000,000 (P. 361, that “there are no existing figures 
on which we (you) can depend, and those that have been suggested are all 
wrong.’’ (p. 345), that “there is no chance of getting water to the consum¬ 
ers within less than ten years from when anything has been actually author¬ 
ized by the people.” (p. 267). I make these few suggestive quotations from 
the proceedings of your Commonwealth Club, circulated as I understand it as 
stating the views of representative men who have this matter at heart, to 
indicate that you yourselves appreciate some, at least, of the facts which we 
think justify us in opposing your previous and present applications, largely 
because we do not w T ant these storage rights tied up, at your instance and 
in your behalf, at least while your action regarding them is so, let me say, 
“uncertain” instead of “impractical and visionary.” I want it to be clearly 
understood that our opposition to the propositions heretofore urged on be¬ 
half of the San Francisco people who favor its acquisition of a municipal 
supply is not unreasonable nor without sufficient foundation. We have at 
all times kept as fully informed on the subject as our facilities for such in¬ 
formation permitted, and have been and are prepared to recognize and ap¬ 
preciate all that you have presented in favor of your propositions. We are 
ready to consider them with you, if you so desire, from the standpoint of 
reason and in a spirit of conciliation and to the end that controversy and 
antagonism may be avoided if it can be done without serious injury to us. 

Doubtless you may ask why we should object to the applications, par¬ 
ticularly if granted on the conditions which you suggest, even before you, as 
a city, are prepared to utilize them, even if you can not, as I contend, as yet 
bind the city by the agreements you offer, and even if the city never does 
develop these storage sites, in which case it might be provided that its privi¬ 
leges therein would lapse. My principal objection is based on the belief that 
the moment any ruling is made looking to the use of these storage sites by 
any private interest, such use by any other person or in any other way will 
remain in abeyance till the first proposition is ultimately disposed of. I 
think that you will concede that we need more or less storage water. But 
you may not understand, as we do, to how great an extent the value of our 
systems and the lands to be irrigated therefrom is affected by the assurance 


184 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


of such storage nor how it is impaired by anything impairing such storage 
or appearing to postpone it. 

While there are numerous opportunities for storage on the Tuolumne 
and its tributaries, both in and out of the Government Reservations, there is 
nothing quite as valuable as what you ask to control. That control is still 
in the Government, either because it still owns the sites and lands to be 
flooded, or because it controls the lands necessary to be used in conducting 
the water to the point of use. I have contended that the Government should 
retain such control till storage should be made on the broad and comprehen¬ 
sive lines and under the conditions insuring their full utilization for the best 
advantage of all who have any just claim to be benefited thereby. I do not 
say that we are now prepared to do this; but we are much nearer that posi¬ 
tion than you. I hope that this may be understood by the Government. It 
has gone so far as to withdraw these sites from entry on the ground that 
such entry would interfere with the ‘ ‘ Tuolumne River Project. ’ ’ Before 
anything of that kind can be properly undertaken, much more data than is 
at present available must be had. 

In response to your request for any suggestions I may wish to make, I 
would say that my principal suggestion would be that made to Mr. Grunsky 
four years ago and repeated to various persons at different times: that you 
join with us in an effort to have the Government take up this matter of 
storage, leaving the question of the disposition of the storage water till the 
matter lias assumed a more tangible and definite shape. I believe that if 
you would do this, storage can be had sooner and to the better satisfaction 
of all who are interested, than by the pursuit of any other line of action. 

You suggest meeting Mr. Dennett, myself and other representatives of 
the district. I Vould like to meet you and talk the whole matter over, and 
doubtless such meeting may be arranged. It might facilitate matters, if we 
could have a personal interview before there is any formal conference. I 
have not undertaken to go over the whole subject—but only to take up such 
points as it seems to me may facilitate future consideration. If you find 
that I am in error on any of these points, I would be glad to have you correct 
me, especially with regard to any official action that has been taken by your 
city on this subject. I have a copy of the two reports made by Mr. Grunsky, 
as city engineer, the proceedings of the Commonwealth Club, Yol. II, No. 7, 
dated June last; a copy of the resolution of your Board of Supervisors, July 
24th,. 1907, relating to the hearing before Secretary Garfield, and of course 
the documents received from you. Unless you have much more data regard¬ 
ing these reservoir sites, than I have had access to, I think you will agree 
with me that there is hardly sufficient to form a basis, even, for the action 
you ask, which emphasizes the advisability of trying to get the reclamation 
service to take up the matter more fully. I have been surprised to find how 
meager the reliable data are regarding the rainfall, run-off, size and condi¬ 
tions of reservoirs at various elevations of we*irs and cost of such weirs and 
the like. 

It has recently been suggested to me by engineers who should know the 
facts, that I have been too hasty in assuming that the storage sites on the 
Tuolumne and its tributaries have sufficient capacity to furnish all the stored 
water which anyone can reasonably claim; and I find that I have based this 
assumption on my general knowledge of the situation, rather than on actual 
facts, and it may be found, on full investigation, that such is not the case. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


185 


Lven, however, if my assumption is correct, it is a serious question whether 
the Hetch Hetchy site could, with any reasonable amount of expenditure, 
furnish sufficient water for San Francisco and such stored water as we can 
reasonably ask. I can find no answer to this question in any data accessible 
to me at this time. 

It you do not feel like acceding to my “main suggestion, ’ ’ I would like 
to have you formulate such order as you think we might join with you in 
having, or asking and consenting to have the Secretary make. Before con¬ 
sidering his matter, I would like to have a clear idea of just what is to be 
considered, and I find that I am unable to get such idea from what is now 
at hand. For instance, I have an impression that the Lake Eleanor site 
which is applied for by Mr. Phelan, is now out of the question, but I do not 
know how that maj^ be. 

I am closing this rather hasty letter, hasty because of inability to give it 
the time, I would like, on the 7th, in order to have it handed to you by Mr. 
Dennett, who expects to leave here to-day, and wants to meet you while he 
is in your city and if so, he will doubtless arrive at some understanding with 
you as to any further action to be taken. 

Yours truly. • P. J. HAZEIn. 

(In re storage site.) Manson. 

Modesto, Calif., August 10th, 1907. 

Mr. Marsden Manson, C. E., 

801 Union Trust Bldg., San Francisco, California. 

Dear Sir:—Inclosed please find copy of letter to Mayor Taylor, dated 
August 9th, 1907, supplementing my former letter to you, of which I have 
sent him a copy hoping that the two may assist in facilitating such future 
discussion as may be had. 

I hope that you will assist in seeing that I am put in possession, as early 
as possible, of all matters which may have a bearing on the 1 1 matter in my 
hands for consideration, ’ ’ and I also hope that you will find it convenient to 
meet us here before the meeting which you have set before the Public Utili¬ 
ties Committee, in San Francisco, next Wednesday, especially as it is doubt¬ 
ful whether or not I can be present at that time and place. 

Yours truly, P. J. HAZEN. 

August 9th, 1907. 

Hon. Edward R. Taylor, Mayor of San Francisco, 

32 Eddy Street, S. F., Calif. 

Dear Sir:—I have received from Mr. John H. Ryan, clerk of your Board 
of Supervisors, answer to my communication to you of the 25th ultimo, and 
he also sends me a copy of a resolution of said board inviting us to attend a 
meeting of the Public Utilities Committee on the 14th of this month. 

As it is likely that I will be unable to be present at that meeting, I send 
you herewith a copy of a letter which I have sent to Mr. Manson, who I 
understand represents you in this matter. I hope that we may be able to 
arrive at an amicable solution of this matter. As I said at the meeting in 
San Francisco, I have no doubt but it can be done when both parties fully 
understand the situation and make a reasonable effort to do so. But it does 
not seem likely that such agreement can be reached, until the parties come 
to an understanding of the facts and of the point or points of difference, if 


18G 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


any, between them. It is in the hope of assisting in arriving at such com¬ 
mon understanding, before undertaking to formally discuss this water ques¬ 
tion, that I wrote this letter to Mr. Manson, and may perhaps supplement it 
with a few further suggestions. 

Your resolution recites that we “fear that the use of the storm waters 
of the Sierras will be injurious to ’ ’—our interests. It does seem to me 
that if I could remove the impression that we have any such fear, much 
would be gained. A careful examination of the record of our official action 
on this subject will show that we have never made that contention. Such 
question has never arisen and may never arise. On the other hand, we hold 
that the main point in controversy is as to the control of certain valuable 
reservoir sites and water privileges now in the control of the Government. 
We have urged that this control should remain in the Government, as a trust, 
till the respective claimants of its bounty should be prepared to use these 
flood waters witli due regard to the rights and privileges and equities of other 
parties. While so in the control of the Government, we have hoped that it 
would continue its investigations, already commenced and still in a very 
imperfect condition, looking to the conservation of such flood waters on 
broad and comprehensive lines, preferably by the Government, but if not by 
it, then by whomsoever might be able to show the best right, and ability to 
undertake such conservation on such lines. Until that time arrives, can it 
serve any good purpose to discuss these questions upon which as yet we have 
insufficient data, and upon which we may be able when the time arrives, to 
agree without difficulty? 

Unless I am in error in the belief that your city has not yet taken the 
first step necessary under its present charter, to enable it to obtain a munici¬ 
pal water system, I do not see how the conditions, limitations, and agree¬ 
ments which your Mr. Manson offers, can be of benefit to us. That step is 
that your Board of Supervisors shall, by ordinance, declare its determination 
that the public interest or necessity demands the acquisition of this public 
utility. Non constat, you may never take the next step, procure and file 
plans and specifications of the cost, not as I take it, such as you now have, 
confessedly out of date and presented under charter conditions not now in 
force, but plans and estimates pursuant to your present or future proceed¬ 
ings. I call particular attention to what I understand your status to be re¬ 
specting this matter at this time, to show you that our opposition to having 
these valuable reservoir sites tied up to await such action as you may or 
may not take, is not based on unreasonable opposition, nor on any wish to 
delay or obstruct what no doubt is a very commendable public enterprise. 
Whenever it appears that this enterprise has any reasonable prospect of 
being achieved, I am pleased, as the representative of Turlock Irrigation 
District, to discuss in a spirit of fairness Mr. Manson’s proposals, which I 
understand to be yours. It seems to me, however, that before any formal 
action is taken, there are a great many things which could be advantageously 
discussed, either personally or by letter, in order to remove a good deal of 
misapprehension. 

For instance: 

While the propositions seem quite clearly stated, on their face, in view 
of the facts and conditions, they are not entirely so to me at this time. 

Doubtless you are acquainted with the contents of Mr. Manson’s com¬ 
munication accompanying his proposed brief to Secretary Garfield. It seems 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


187 


to me that in order to determine whether or not the action asked to be taken 
by the department would comply with the conditions suggested, it would be 
well that such suggested action be definitely formulated. As an item, with¬ 
out having such order, as it is desired to have made, clearly stated, it does 
not appear whether it would “ recognize and thoroughly protect the para¬ 
mount interests of these districts,” what those “paramount interests” are 
conceded to be, nor what the “full extent of their claims to water,” is which 
is to be so recognized and protected. 

Nor do I quite understand what is meant by “recognize and concede 
the rights of the districts to additional storage whenever they see fit to 
utilize it.” If it implies that the districts may add to the height of the stor¬ 
age works, it also implies that they will not be made to their full practical 
capacity in the first instance. This is one of the greatest objections to hav¬ 
ing these storage sites pass into the control of any interest which would not, 
in the first instance, utilize them to their full practical capacity. 

Again, it is said “surplus flood waters will be discharged as the dis¬ 
tricts desire.” If this means that we are to have only such waters as are 
“surplus” after San Francisco is supplied, it might mean little to us; if it 
means that we are to have as much as we choose, San Francisco might have 
nothing left. 

It seems to me that any arrangement made should definitely fix the 
amount and character of storage to be made, and the time within which it 
is to be completed in order for the privileges granted to be retained; the 
amount of stored water to be provided and the respective rights of the par¬ 
ties therein. 

Recurring to the proposition I suggested to Mr. Manson that we would 
like to have you to join us in an effort to have the reclamation service pursue 
the investigations and projects it undertook respecting the reservoir sites on 
the Tuolumne, regardless of what the ultimate result of the projects for such 
storage may be, with a view of having reliable data on which to base such 
action, I would call your attention to the correspondence and action of the 
department on this subject in 1905, in which Mr. J. B. Lippincott, supervis¬ 
ing engineer, gave this matter a great deal of attention. 

Hoping that I may be able to meet you at the public utilities meeting 
which has been set for the 14th, and that in the meantime I may meet Mr. 
Manson, yourself or some one else representing your city, I remain, yours 
respectfully, P- HAZEN, 

Attorney for Turlock Irrigation District. 

Modesto, Calif., August 22nd, 1907. 

Mr. Marsden Manson, 

801 Union Trust Building, San Francisco, California. 

Dear Sir:—Replying to yours of yesterday, (unsigned): I am having 
a copy of the proceedings which you so kindly lent me, copied, and as 
soon as it is finished, doubtless tomorrow, will return it to you as you 
request. I hoped also to have had a copy of the proceedings before Secretary 
Garfield, before presenting our brief, but that it seems is impracticable. 
I also send you herewith a copy of the brief which you ask for, the one 
which was presented to Secretary Hitchcock at the last previous hearing 
of this matter, in July, 1903. This is about the last copy of that brief 
which I have available. I intend to have it reprinted for presentation 


188 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


in connection with the brief which will probably be presented to Sercetarv 
Garfield at this hearing, but I do not wish it to be understood that it 
accurately and fully presents our position at this time, for while I have 
not as yet had time to examine it carefully of late, I know that it was 
prepared and printed hastily and is not entirely accurate or clear, yet I 
think that in the main and in a general way, it presents the facts and 
our claims respecting them substantially as they at present exist, except 
in so far as the conditions have since changed, and for that reason I 
refer to it as defining our position. I may say in passing, that I have not 
as yet seen any good reason for a change in that position during the five 
or six years that this matter has been specially in hand, nor for the matter 
of that, during the twenty years of the existence of Turlock Irrigation 
District, during all of which time I have been its legal representative 
and had in mind the possibility, not probability, of such controversy as 
at present exists arising at some time. As you request a copy of my 
brief, to be presented to Secretary Garfield, “at the earliest date possible,” 
I assume that you do not desire to modify the brief which you sent me 
and that you have abandoned all expectation of any compromise. In 
view of that I will at once proceed with the preparation of my brief, and 
send you a copy “as soon as possible.” I am informed by Mr. Dennett that 
he already has his brief prepared and will send you a copy at an early 
date. My impression is that you intimated to me, during our conversations, 
that you might wish to modify your brief, as given to me, before pre¬ 
senting it to the Secretary. If this is the case, I hope that you will do so at 
once, as my understanding is that it was the order, or statement of the 
Secretary, that you should present your case in full in and with Jyonr 
opening brief, and that you should serve on us everything on which you 
rely before we reply. 

I hope that you have not abandoned all idea of a compromise, though 
your request for my brief and your failure to in any way notice or reply 
to the two somewhat extended communications I have sent you on that 
subject, indicated that condition. For myself, as I said to you on the 
24th of last month in the presence of Secretary Garfield, I still feel that 
“if the parties fully understand the facts and attitude of the opposing 
interests, and are inclined to be reasonable, there should be no difficulty 
in arriving at an amicable adjustment of the situation.” After the con¬ 
ference between you and Mr. Galloway, representing San Francisco, on the 
one hand, and the members of the Board of Directors of Turlock and 
Modesto Districts, and other representative citizens of this community, 
last Tuesday, I asked the members of our board what they desired me 
to do in the matter, and they unanimously said that they left it all with 
me. Representing them and through them the largest interest antagonistic 
to your claims in this matter, I still say, we are willing to negotiate and 
if possible to arrive at any reasonable basis of compromise of this con¬ 
troversy. I think that we have shown our good faith and fair intentions 
in this respect. While the matter was left in your hands so far as San 
Francisco was concerned, I sent you two communications, one addressed 
to yourself and a copy of another addressed to Mayor Taylor, looking to 
such compromise. Later, your Board of Supervisors having appointed a 
meeting of its public utilities committee and inviting us to be present, 
we were present, awaited your convenience from two o’clock, the time 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


189 


you had fixed, to three o ’clock, the time to which you postponed the con- 
ference, and afterwards to eight o’clock, to which time you wished to have 
it postponed, and later arranged, at your suggestion, a conference in 
Modesto, at which there were present a large number of our people, many 
of whom had to travel from five to twenty-five miles to meet you. While, 
as you may remember, I thought that this method of discussing the matter 
in a kind of public town meeting at which everyone who chose attended 
and was allowed to take up the questions which occurred to them without 
any considerable amount of consideration, or knowledge of the conditions, 
was not as likely to bring about satisfactory results as a discussion 
between a limited number of duly authorized and responsible representatives; 
yet we did meet you at the time and the way you suggested, and I think 
have done all we possibly could do to attempt to come to an amicable 
understanding on the subject and adjustment of our differences. While 
I did not expect any definite result from these conferences, and the out¬ 
come is about as I anticipated, no definite results; we have done some 
good by these discussions. We have practically settled some things which 
were before in doubt: that you have no special claim on these reservoir 
sites by reason of the fact that you have asked for them before we did; 
that the question between us is not so much as to the amount of water 
which the Tuolumne river will furnish, provided its storm or flood waters 
are properly conserved and distributed, but really as to the control of 
such conservation and distribution. It is also clear that up to the present 
time, you make no concessions to us by way of compromise, but insist 
on having given to you the two reservoir sites most valuable and available, 
so far as now appears, on the Tuolumne river, the only source of our 
water supply, conceding to us nothing except that about which there never 
was any question, the right to the normal flow of the river to the extent 
of our appropriation and use; that our conservative, representative men, 
many of whom came from five to twenty-five miles to meet you, not those 
who had most to say, have been and are and will be, ready to consider 
any reasonable proposition of compromise; that you do not propose or 
intend, if you obtain control of these reservoir sites, to store water with 
any reference to our rights, needs or privileges, not as we have contended 
to the best advantage of all concerned but solely with reference to your 
wishes and desires; and that there is not now available any sufficient and 
reliable data upon which to base a reasonable adjustment of this matter. 

There are some other matters which it seems to me are now pretty 
well settled though you do not seem ready to wholly concede them: we 
have, by reason of our appropriations under the laws of the State, recognized 
by the United States, and our investments upon the faith of the policy 
of the Government, at least an equitable right to be considered by the 
officers of the U. S. Government, at least an equitable claim on its con¬ 
sideration in the disposal of these reservoir sites; that you have not as yet, 
as a municipality, taken the necessary steps to entitle you to such recog¬ 
nition, notably that you have not passed the resolution which your present 
charter makes a jurisdictional prerequisite to the acquisition of a municipal 
water supply, that 11 the public interest or necessity demands the acquisi¬ 
tion,” and it is uncertain whether it will ever do so. (In this connection, 
your personal statements, and those of other representative men, found 
in the proceedings of your Commonwealth Club, furnished me by Mr. 


190 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


Phelan as indicating the attitude of your people and the present condition 
of affairs on this subject have an important bearing on this point); that 
storage of water, to a greater or less extent, is and will be a necessity 
for these districts whose interests it is the policy both of the State and 
the United States to foster and protect. (Your associate, Mr. Galloway, in¬ 
sisted on our stating definitely what amount of such storage we would require. 
This, as I stated to him, in the nature of things is an impossibility, being 
a matter of opinion, based on theories about which men best qualified to 
judge differ widely, and involving the needs of the future which necessarily 
are largely a matter of conjecture, so that on this point we can only say 
that we wish to secure, if practicable, such a supply that at any time, 
if required, we may be able to have the full amount of our appropriations, 
2140 second feet, the amount which our canals are intended to carry and 
the amount which, according to the best information obtainable, will be 
necessary for the irrigation of our lands of the districts, and the amount 
of supply on which our systems have been planned and the irrigation of 
our lands undertaken. Possibly storage to this full amount may not be 
necessary; very probably we would not insist on all the storage practicable 
from the Hetch Hetcliy being reserved for us; what amount of it we feel 
that we ought to insist upon may be stated when you are ready to concede to 
us any.part of it; till then, we must insist that such storage shall not be 
placed out of our reach and that we shall not be left to depend entirely 
upon your grace, which seems to be your present claim); and that, while 
you have at all times professed your intention to interfere in no way with 
our rights or interests, you have at no point conceded to us anything what¬ 
ever which we have presented from our view point, but insist at all times 
uncompromisingly on whatever you have planned. 

It is these considerations which impel me at this time to review 
somewhat fully what has occurred between us, in the hope that you may 
yet give some consideration to the suggestions we have made, in the hope that 
there may yet be found some basis of compromise, to a greater or less 
extent. 

I hope that you will review my former communications on this subject 
and what has occurred between us personally and let me have your views 
regarding them before I complete my brief for the Secretary; particularly, 
I would like to have you formulate such order as you wish the Secretary 
to make, on the lines suggested by me, specially considering that its terms 
be so clear and definite, if possible, that there may be no question as to 
its meaning and effect. 

Yours truly, 

P. J. HAZEN. 

Modesto, Calif., August 26th, 1907. 

Hon. James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: On the 24th of last July, at the rooms of the Board of Supervisors 
of the City and County of San Francisco, Mayor Taylor of that city pre¬ 
siding, you listened to a discussion by a number of interested parties 
respecting the granting by you of certain privileges in the Yosemite National 
Park, mainly the re-opening by you of the hearing of the application of 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


191 


James D. Phelan for reservoir sites at Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor, 
which application had been denied by your predecessor. 

The undersigned, representing Turlock Irrigation District, took no 
part in that discussion, further than to obtain from you your assurance 
that no decision would be made until we should be fully heard, which hearing, 
would be had upon the presentation by the applicant of a brief fully 
setting forth his claims, accompanied by everything on which he relied, 
the same to be served on us, to which we would have thirty days in which 
to reply. 

We had been informed that application for the re-opening of the 
hearing of that application was being made to you, and thereupon obtained 
from you, through Mr. Dennett, representing Modesto Irrigation District, 
whose interests are similar to ours, an appointment, on the above date, 
to be heard, as I understood it, as to whether such hearing should be re¬ 
opened; but was informed at that time that you had already decided to 
re-open the hearing, consequently the only matter before you was as to 
the granting or refusing the application. It was then stated in response to 
your inquiry, by those in charge of the meeting, that a phonographic report 
of the proceedings was being made, and a transcript thereof would be 
available, but I have been unable to obtain such transcript, consequently 
have been compelled to rely on my memory for such proceedings; but this 
is not perhaps very material, as, as I understand it, the discussion at that 
time was rather preliminary and informal, participated in by whomsoever 
desired to be heard, and the matter to be considered by you would be 
submitted by the interested parties in due form and in writing. I believe 
that it was also then understood that the only parties directly interested 
were the City and County of San Francisco, on behalf of the applicant, 
and Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District in opposition 
thereto. Mr. Marsden Manson has been appointed by San Francisco to 
represent San Francisco in that behalf, and Mr. Dennett to represent 
Modesto District, and the undersigned Turlock District. 

The purpose of this communication is to state the present status of 
the matter and to ask for such information as your department may be 
able and willing to furnish to enable us to present the case before you. 

Mr. Manson has handed me a short brief accompanied with copies of 
certain documents, the same being understood to be merely tentative, and 
I am now awaiting his reply as to whether he intends it to be the final 
presentation of his case or not. This will be more fully apparent from 
the communications, copies of which I enclose. 

Pending this matter, I have had some communications with Mr. Manson, 
respecting an attempted compromise, copies of which I enclose, viz.: letter to 
Manson of August 4th; letter to Mayor Taylor of August 9th, copy sent 
to Mr. Manson, and letter to Mr. Manson of August 22d, which will in 
part explain the present condition of affairs respecting such compromise, 
which was suggested at the meeting in July. We have also met with the 
Public Utilities Committee of San Francisco and with Mr. Manson and Mr. 
J. D. Galloway, appointed by such committee on that subject, but, as will 
appear from said communications, it does not now appear that any material 
results will come from those communications or conferences and it seems 
that the matter will have to be decided by you upon such briefs as may be 
presented. 


192 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


In order to properly present such brief on our part, we are compelled 
to ask you for certain information which we have been unable to obtain 
elsewhere: a copy of the application, or applications, of James D. Phelan 
and of any documents in support thereof on behalf of San Francisco and a 
copy of the record of your action thereon; a copy of any communications 
from the Attorney-General or any other officer of the Government relating 
to this matter and a copy of the record of your action theeron; and a copy 
of the regulations of your department relating to such applications, the 
control and management of the Yosemite National Park and a copy of the 
record of the action of your department relating to similar applications 
for reservoir sites and rights of way within that reservation; and a copy 
of the action of your department, particularly the Geological Survey and 
Reclamation Service, relating to the Tuolumne River Project. 

The pertinency of these matters may appear from the following recital 
of the history, so far as I have been able to get it, of this matter. 

In 1901 James D. Phelan made certain applications for reservoir sites 
and rights of way in said park, copies of which we have never been able 
to obtain; other parties about the same time made similar applications; 
these applications were denied, but on a re-hearing, we were accorded a 
hearing, at which we presented a brief, copy of which is transmitted here¬ 
with as setting forth our position in the matter and contentions relating 
thereto, and the applications were again denied; it now appears for the 
first time, that these applications of Mr. Phelan were made on behalf of 
the City of San Francisco and that he has assigned his rights thereunder 
to said city. It was thereafter attempted to obtain an Act of Congress 
excluding the sites in question from the Park in order to get them out of 
the control of the Secretary of the Interior. This also failed and it was 
afterwards attempted to obtain such act granting to San Francisco such 
sites, which attempt also failed; subsequently, it seems that the Attorney- 
General expressed an opinion somewhat adverse to the apparent views of 
your predecessor regarding the law applying to this matter, on which, I 
take it, you base your decision to “re-open’’ the hearing. In view of all 
of which I trust that you will furnish us with the information requested, 
that we may be able to fully present our side of the controversy. 

Yours truly, 

P. J. HAZEN, 

Attorney for Turlock Irrigation District. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


193 


EXHIBIT “C.” 


Miscellaneous data and remarks respecting water flow, progress of the 
districts, etc., according to the assessment rolls of Modesto and Turlock 
Districts. 

The valuation of lands and number of land owners in the two districts 
were: 


Valuation. Number of Land Owners. 

$3,503,762 1,114 in the year A. D. 1907. 

3,319,328 1,461 in the year A. D. 1903, 

9,078,385 2,743 in the year A. D. 1900.* 

This indicates, though it does not show fully, the rapid subdivision 
of lands and settlement under irrigation, a large percentage of the later 
purchasers not yet appearing on the assessment rolls. Neither does it 


show the increase in valuation of the irrigated lands, most of such irrigation 
being done on large tracts which have been subdivided; as for instance, 
one land owner last year has divided his land into thirty-five parcels, and 
another, owning but 640 acres, sold to forty different persons; some of 
this land could not be sold for over fifteen to twenty dollars an acre before 
irrigation, and scarcely paid interest and taxes on the valuation; since, it 
has been sold for one and two hundred dollars per acre and pays handsome 
returns on the investment; the irrigated crops, as shown by the county 
assessment, for this year in acres are: corn, 1,050; potatoes, 1220; beans, 
943; alfalfa, 45,810; melons, 1,221; vines, 3,810; trees, 6,155; asparagus, 
garden truck, peas, peanuts, tomatoes, etc., 2,381; this includes some land not 
within the irrigation districts, and does not include the land in Turlock 
District which is in Merced county, but indicates approximately the char¬ 
acter of improvement which has been made in the districts under irrigation. 
The land irrigated during the past year in Modesto District is estimated 
at 14,020 acres, and in Turlock District at 36,000; these figures do not 
show all the land cultivated to crops depending on irrigation, as much of 
the land is ‘‘sub-irrigated ” from irrigation on nearby lands; acreage of 
land under actual irrigation has not been increased as rapidly in proportion 
during the last year as during former years, nor as it will probably do 
hereafter, many land owners having improved their lands to the limit 
of their financial ability therefore, and are awaiting the returns from 
their crops before extending such improvements; irrigation in the two 
districts is yet in its infancy and is to a considerable extent experimental, 
but it has been developed sufficiently to establish conclusively that it is 
the very life of these two districts, that it will bring them prosperity 
where without it they can expect scarcely more than a scant existence, 
and that this ‘‘life” is dependent largely upon the storage of water on 
their only source of supply, as will more fully appear from the following 
data: 

Estimated monthly discharge of the Tuolumne River during periods 
of low water, taken from U. S. Geol. Survey reports for periods recorded, 


1878-84 and 1895-1905: 


*lt is probable that the years 1900 and 1907 should be transposed, but 
they appear as above in the original brief of Mr. Hazen. 



194 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


IN ACRE FEET. 


Year. 

Two low 

months. 

Four low months, 

Aug. and Sept. 

1878 

Nov. and Dec. . 

.7,964 

only months recorded. 


1879 

Sept, and Oct. . 

.4,165 

August . . . . 

. . .11,252 

13,573 




Sept. 

. . . 2,321 





Oct. 

. . . 1,844 





Nov. 

. . . 6,010 


1880 

Oct. and Nov. 

.6,525 

Jan. 

. . .25,148 

83,787 




Sept. 

. . . 7,973 





Oct. 

. . . 3,443 





Nov. 

. .. 2,082 


1881 

Oct. and Nov.. 

.15,430 

Aug. 

. . .24,041 

31,478 




Sept. 

... 7,437 





Oct. 

. . . 7,993 





Nov. 

. . .11,484 


1882 

Aug. and Sept. 

.48,682 

Aug. 

. . .35,294 

48,682 



• 

Sept. 

. . .13,388 





Nov. 

. . .33,917 





Dec. 

. . .20,106 


1883 

Sept, and Oct. 

.35,567 

Sept. 

. . . 9,457 

49,586 




Oct. 

. . .16,110 





Nov. 

. . .19,457 





Dec. 

. . .20,106 


1884 

Sept, and Oct. 

.34,521 

Sept. 

. . .19,457 

119,989 




Oct. 

. . .15,064 





No data 

for Nov. 

and Dec. 

1895 

Oct. and Nov. 

.24,331 

Sept. 

. . .36,600 

88,925 




Oct. 

.. . 9,346 





Nov. 

. . .14,985 





Dec. 

. . .17,405 


1896 

Oct. and Nov. 

.47,988 

Aug. 

. . .35,392 

69,583 




Sept. 

.. .34,191 





Oct. 

. . .13,797 





Dec. 

. . .63,247 


1897 

Sept, and Oct. 

.18,767 

Aug. 

.. . 14,573 

19,690 




Sept. 

. . . 5,117 





Oct. 

.. .13,650 





Nov. 

. . .45,699 


1898 

Aug. and Sept. 

. 6,416 

Aug. 

. . . 5,226 

6,416 




Sept. 

. . . 1,190 





Oct. 

. . . 3,197 





Nov. 

. . . 2,321 


1899 

Aug. and Sept. 

.10,880 

Jan. 

. . .29,945 

10,880 




Aug. 

. .. 8,916 





Sept. 

. . . 1,964 





Oct. 

. . .31,051 


1900 

Aug. and Sept. 

. 3,299 

Feb. 

. . .53,704 

3,299 




July . 

. . .42,672 





Aug. 

. .. 2,644 





Sept. 

... 655 






























































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


195 


1901 

Sept. 

and Oct. . . 

.. .23,387 

Aug. 

.48,206 

58,619 





Sept.. 

.10,413 






Oct.. 

.12,974 






Nov.. 

.34,155 


1902 

Aug. 

and Sept. .. 

. . .10,891 

Jan. 

.21,644 

10,891 



V 


Aug. 

.5,595 






Sept. 

. 5,296 






Oct. 

. 6,948 


1903 

Sept. 

and Oct. . . 

.. .10,674 

Aug. 

.16,171 

22,418 





Sept. 

. 6,247 






Oct. 

.4,427 






Dec. 

.26,563 


1904 

Jan. and Feb. 

.. .55,155 

Jan. 

.26,686 

86,081 





Aug. 

.47,284 

' 





Sept. 

.38,787 






Dec. 

.28,797 


1905 

Oct. 

and Nov. . . 

... 6,499 

Sept. 

.4,647 

17,687 





Oct. 

. 2,798 






Nov. 

. 3,701 






Dec. 

. 7,932 



The discharge of the Tuolumne has been reported with more or less 
accuracy during the years 1879-1884 and 1895-1905 and such report is found in 
the U. S. Geol. Survey papers. 

The reports for the years 1879-84, however, are taken from the State 
Engineer’s reports of observations at Modesto, and can not be entirely relied 
on in comparison with the records of more recent observations. 

The only records at both La Grange and Modesto are for the year 1896; 
they are found on pages 389 and 399 of Water Supply and Irrigation Paper 
No. 81, and give the monthly discharge of the Tuolumne as follows, in acre 


feet: 

. Month at La Grange at Modesto 

January .142,159 189,370 

February . 66,954 68,007 

March .167,578 167,578 

April .209,574 212,828 

May .272,371 318,500 

June .457,705 693,104 

July .184,677 253,408 

August . 29,828 35,392 

September . 25,742 34,191 

October . 7,366 13,797 

November . 67',543 72,012 

December . 66,603 63,247 


Total .1,698,100 2,121,434 


This shows that the run-off at Modesto is, or at least was in that year, 
about one-fourth greater than that at La Grange; it also shows that the 
tables given in published reports are incorrect, for these tables give the 
discharge at Modesto and La Grange for March at exactly the same amounts 
and the discharge at La Grange for December at 66,603 and at Modesto at 










































196 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


63,247, an obvious mistake. It is clear, however, that a large part of the 
run-off given in these tables is not available for these districts, especially 
that during the so-called “flood seasons.” 

As indicating the variable amount of run-off, showing the necessity 
of storage, the following figures are taken from the published tables: 


Max. 

Year. daily. 

1879 .23,640 

1880 .38,600 

1881 .43,800 

1882 .27,340 

1883 . 

1884 . 

1895 .39,300 

1896 .29,746 

1897 .29,400 

1898 .13,920 

1899 .43,600 

1900 .26,320 

1901 .38,480 

1902 .25,260 

1903 . 

1904 . 

1905 . 


Min. 

daily. 

280 

260 

250 

654 


224 

150 

172 

40 

10 


Max. 

monthly. 

420,158 

837,521 

447,261 

478,770 

502,968 

486,743 

725.400 
693,104 
738,121 
284,075 
360,594 
417,870 
558,566 
389,462 
510,347 
718,913 

364.400 


Min. 

monthly. 

1,844 

2,082 

7,437 

13,388 

16,110 

15,064 

9,346 

13,797 

5,117 

1,190 

1,964 

655 

10,413 

5,296 

4,427 

26,686 

2,798 


This show’s that there has never been a year, during the period w r hen 
the flow of the river has been recorded, when the month of low water 
would have furnished the amount of water used in 1904, when only one- 
tenth of the land of the districts w r as under irrigation, in the month when 
water is usually low. 

As indicating the necessity of taking into account an extended and 
continuous number of observations rather than averages or deductions 
and estimates from desultory measurements of stream flow, the hydrographic 
report of the U. S. Geol. Survey gives the flow of the Tuolumne at La 
Grange, for the months of Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., and Dec., 1905, at 
32,120 acre feet; the same months of 1904 at 380,488 acre fefet, and for 
1898 at 27,677 acre feet; numerous other instances show T n by the records 
of the stream flow could be given, showing that at some times the flow at 
low water is continuous for months, sometimes it continues one or two 
months, other times there is an extremely high flow for a short time, fol¬ 
lowed by extremely low water, sometimes the high and low water periods 
occur at one time of the year at other times at entirely different times, 
so that it is quite clear that any w T ater supply requiring any considerable 
continuous stream flow must supplement the natural flow of the river by 


storage. 

A notable example of this fact is shown by the report of Frank Adams; 
under the direction of Elwood Mead, numbered 839, called “Separate No. 
3,” at page 110. The year 1904 afforded an unusual supply of water 
during the months of Aug. and Sept., and though there were but 26,895 
acres, or about one-tenth of the acreage of the two districts, under irriga¬ 
tion, the canals run 53,391 acre feet of water in these two months. In no 
year, so far as recorded, has this amount been exceeded during the two 






















SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


197 


low months of the year. As a rule, it is the time of low water when water 
is most needed, although the largest quantity may not be necessary at that 
time. Making liberal allowances for excessive use, for waste, and for the 
fact that some water was used on land newly irrigated which will not 
need so much in the future, the fact remains that as irrigation develops, 
storage will be more and more a necessity. During Aug. and Sept, of last 
year the canals carried 77,747 acre feet, and in August of this year 36,556 
acre feet, though in each there was a shutting off of water for some time 
in Modesto District, to allow necessary repairs, and the water was curtailed 
after August 20th last year and after August 24th this year. So far as 
the question before the Department of the Interior is concerned, the stream 
flow at Hetch Hetchy is of more importance than any other fact as to 
water supply on the Tuolumne; but unfortunately, the records of such flow 
are meager, desultory, incomplete, and largely unreliable, unreliable at 
least in so far as they are based on theories and deductions from the scanty 
facts available. A few facts are, however, apparent, even from these data, 
taken in connection with well understood conditions. One of these is that 
a large proportion of the stream flow of the Tuolumne, available to these 
districts during the period of low water when water is most needed, comes 
from the Hetch Hetchy and similar localities, the largest from the Hetch 
Hetchy while the greatest part of the so-called flood, extra seasonal or 
waste waters, come from the lands below and for which there is little 
opportunity. Page 212, and other data. 


ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISCHARGE IN ACRE FEET DURING 1901 


At Hetch Hetchy dam site. 

At La Grange 

Percentage 

June . 

.206,836 

558,566 

37 

July . 

.132,572 

227,566 

57 

Aug. 

. 26,255 

48,206 

54 

Sept. 

. 6,486 

10,413 

64 

These are all the monthly estimates 

of run-off at Hetch Hetchy found 

in the government 

reports, but somewhat 

similar results are 

indicated from 

some segregated measurements found in Cal. Hyd. W. S. paper No. 81, page 

382, compared with 

other data: 



June 29 . . . . 

.14,242 

22,730 

62 

July 4 . 

. 6,598 

9,830 

67 

July 12 . .. . 

. 5,440 

8,200 

64 

July 21 ... 

. 3,762 

4,950 

75 

July 29 .... 

. 2,320 

2,960 

78 

Aug. 2 . 

. 2,274 

2,660 

85 

Aug. 13 .... 

. 1,508 

710 


Sept. 20 .... 

. 132 

170 

81 


(The measurement at La Grange was probably exclusive of the canal 
diversion on August 13th, for which there is no record. The most of the 
measurements of which we have any record at Hetch Hetchy, were taken 
during 1901, which was an exceptional year, and cannot be taken as typical. 
Doubtless, if we had a record during times of high floods, we should find 
that the flow from Hetch Hetchy, proportionally, during periods of low 
water, would be larger than indicated by the above figures, for the reason 
that the greatest floods come from the lower altitudes, while the more 














198 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


constant flow during periods of comparative low water comes from tlie 
higher elevations.) 

This element of the relation between the high Sierras and the con¬ 
stancy of the overflow has an important bearing on the policy of the gov¬ 
ernment with respect to the control of these reservoir sites, and such control 
should not be relinquished at least until there Is sufficient information on 
which to base wise action thereon. We contend for a broad policy of pro¬ 
tection for all interested parties. The present application is a direct attack 
on such policy. It is proposed to put in a dam at Hetch Hetchy storing 
only 107,426 acre feet, while one storing 176,547 acre feet is entirely prac¬ 
ticable, see 21st An. Rep. (Geol. Surv., p. 451, testimony of Grunsky, at 
former hearing, p. 55). At the same time if San Francisco controls this 
reservoir site, it would to a large extent control the flow from above it, 
and while admitting our right to all flow less than our appropriation, would 
have the power to appropriate that flow unless, at great cost, would guard 
against it; on the other hand if the government controls the site, it could, 
without difficulty, protect the rights of the respective parties. 

The data as to reservoir sites on the Tuolumne are very incomplete. 
J. B. Lippincott is often quoted as having made an estimate of the capacity 
of 12 “surveyed sites ’’ at 247,511 acre feet, or including two others, un¬ 
surveyed, 287,261 acre feet. What the extent of these surveys is does not 
appear except in the case of the Hetch Hetchy, which does appear to have 
been surveyed somewhat carefully and the results stated in the government 
report of the 21st An. Geol. Surv. 

The run-off at “high mountain area” as compared with La Grange, 
is estimated by Mr. Grunsky (San Francisco Municipal Reports, 1902-03, p. 
425), as being 50 per cent greater than from the entire watershed, and it is 
this high percentage of run-off during the period when it is most needed 
which this applicant seeks to control so as to ‘ ‘ shut out all other persons 
from developing the water which you propose to store.” (Letter from 
Grunsky to Phelan, p. 51 of former proceedings on this application.) 

The report of the Yosemite Park Commission, referred to in the letter 
of Secretary Hitchcock in his letter to the President, dated Feb. 20th, 1905, 
on page 13 of Appendix B, submitted by this applicant with its brief, shows 
that these reservoir sites are in the high Sierras, that most of the lands 
which would be flooded by storage thereat have been patented, but advo¬ 
cates the acquisition of these lands by the Government, and in the mean¬ 
time, its control thereof so far as it still retains such control. This report 
resulted in a change by Act of Congress, in the boundaries of the Park, 
"presumably in accordance with the policy therein recommended. 

In 1905 there was considerable correspondence between J. B. Lippin¬ 
cott, of the reclamation service, and Hon. J. C. Needham, regarding these 
reservoir sites, in which it appeared that the department recognized the 
sa,me line of policy, to preserve the control of these reservoir sites, about 
the only ones over which is still had control in the State, as a trust for 
public purposes. 

All this resulted in the change in the boundaries of the Park Reserva¬ 
tion made by Congress and in the withdrawal of reservoir sites, outside 
of the Park, such being unnecessary within the Park, for the reason, stated 
in the letter of Secretary Hitchcock, above referred to (p. 13), that the 
“interests of the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts are very fully 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


199 


protected at the present time so far as they are dependent upon the waters 
from the rivers in the Yosemite National Park.” 

There have been no complete records made or preserved of the flow of 
water in the Turlock and Modesto canals, or of the amount of lands irrigated 
thereby, the time and means of the people having been fully occupied with 
their endeavors to obtain and use a water supply, so that they have not 
been able to give much attention to making such records or theorizing 
thereon. Moreover, the irrigation, up to the present time, has been so far 
experimental, interrupted by breaks in the canals and irrigation ditches 
owing to their having been in use but a short time, and by exceptional 
conditions affecting the water supply, that a detailed exhibit of the data 
available would be of little use. Enough has been shown, however, to 
make it clear, that at least one acre foot of water is necessary to be stored 
for the use of the districts during the period of low water, making all 
allowances for excessive use and waste of water and other conditions which 
experience may enable people to take advantage of so as to enable them to 
carry on their irrigation to the best advantage. This will require for the 
use of the districts, at least, approximately 260,000 acre feet of stored 
water. The proposition of the applicant herein is to take from us the pos¬ 
sibility of the use of over 200,000 acre feet of the storage available, so far 
as the same has been investigated, leaving us to look to the possible 70,000 
acre feet to be found in small reservoir sites, held in private ownership 
and scattered at remote points and of doubtful availability as compared 
with that which said applicant asks to have turned over to it. 

There is submitted herewith a report of the Commonwealth Club of 
California circulated by the applicant as presenting the views of its repre¬ 
sentative citizens, and the conditions existing in San Francisco relating to 
the question here being presented, the report of the proceedings before 
Scretary Hitchcock at the hearing of this application in 1903, the Municipal 
Reports of San Francisco for the years 1901-02 and 1902-03, and the report 
of the Yosemite Park Commission above referred to, and the records and 
files of this department relating to this matter, all of which, together with 
the brief submitted by the applicant and the papers attached thereto have 
more or less bearing on the matter under submission and are hereby referred 
to in support of the arguments submitted in the brief herewith submitted. 

BRIEF. 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE MATTER 

OF THE APPLICATION OF 
JAMES D. PHELAN. 

FOR THE HETCH-HETCHY AND LAKE ELEANOR RESERVOIR 
SITES IN THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, AND FOR 
RIGHTS OF WAY THROUGH SAID PARK. 

To the Hon. James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior: 

Pursuant to a decision made by you on July 24th of this year, the mat¬ 
ter of the application of James D. Phelan, made to and denied by youi pie- 
decessor in office, is to be “re-opened’’ and heard by you on the briefs and 
exhibits now to be presented by the parties in interest, after service tlieieof 
on the opposing parties, and not as we understand it, upon any ex parte 
presentation; and Turlock Irrigation District now presents this brief in 


200 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


reply to the brief handed to us by Mr. Marsden Manson on behalf of the 
City and County of San Francisco. Pending this presentation, the parties 
have had some considerable correspondence and personal interviews with a 
view, if possible, of making some compromise respecting their differences, 
as will appear from the copies of letters hereto annexed, but no practical 
results have as yet been reached in that way. We assume at the outset that 
your decision to re-open the hearing on this application does not imply the 
formation of any opinion by you as to the merits of the application or the 
propriety or advisability of changing the ruling made by your predecessor. 
At the same time, we also have a right to assume that you will not reverse 
a decision made, adhered to on a rehearing, and reaffirmed in response to a 
subsequent inquiry respecting the same by the President, without very strong 
reasons for such reversal. The only reason we have seen advanced seems to 
us to be based on a misunderstanding of that decision. At the former hear¬ 
ing, the rights and claims of Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts were 
considered and recognized as having an important bearing on the actions 
of the department, (see p. 54 and elsewhere in the report on the rehearing of 
this application before Secretary Hitchcock). He decided that “it would 
not be expedient at this time to accord favorable consideration to the appli¬ 
cations presented by Mr. Phelan, ” and in his report to the President he 
says that ‘ 1 the interests of the Turlock and the Modesto Irrigation Districts 
are very fully protected at the present time. ’ ’ It seems to be assumed by 
those urging a reversal of his decision that it was based on an erroneous 
view of the law and that for this reason you should rfverse his decision; 
that he believed that he had no power under the law to grant these applica¬ 
tions, and that the opinion of the Attorney General being that the Secretary 
has such power, you should grant them. But we submit that the decisions of 
your predecessor are not based on his supposed lack of power but on his 
opinion that, under the law as he understood it and the facts as presented 
to him, the applications should not be granted, and we further submit that 
his views of the purpose and intent were correct and that the facts do not 
warrant the granting of the applications; and further, that if the matter 
were doubtful, you would adhere to the decision heretofore made in order to 
protect the rights acquired on the faith of such decision. 

We maintain that the policy of the department should be to retain these 
reservoir sites as a trust for the benefit of those who may be entitled to have 
or share in their valuable capabilities, at least till such time as their develop¬ 
ment in the best manner and for the benefit of the greatest number is 
assured, and in the meantime that it should investigate and develop their 
storage capacity to the end that this may be done, either by the government 
or such person as may have the right and ability to do so. The applicant 
asks that these valuable storage sites be placed in Ins control, for a limited 
and special purpose, thus working a serious injury to us, present and pros¬ 
pective. Our position on this subject is stated in the brief heretofore pre¬ 
sented and in the other exhibits, copies of which are hereto attached and 
need not be set forth in detail in this brief. 

We represent a public corporation formed under the laws of the State 
of California to carry out a system of irrigation whereby the people of such 
districts own and control the canals and works therefor. Such irrigation has 
been and is the special care of both the State and the National Government. 
These districts are riparian to the source of supply from which this appli- 


SAN FRANCLSCO, CALIFORNIA 


201 


cant seeks to take water to a far distant community which is not so ripanan. 
We have been engaged for twenty years in the development of such water 
system, have expended much time and money thereon and have but just now 
got it into practical and successful operation. Thriving communities are 
being built up, their life depending on such irrigation. Anything which 
injuriously affects it is contrary to the whole policy of all the laws of the 
State and Nation bearing thereon, and this is borne out by the action of the 
various departments of the Governments on the subjects, to which we have 
called attention to some extent in the brief heretofore referred to, and is 
also shown by the documents referred to in the exhibits hereto attached. 
That policy, to protect storage sites for the benefit of prospective users 
thereof, is the special charge of this department as an important element 
of its duty under the law, to foster and promote irrigation. It is also 
charged with a special duty respecting the rights here involved to preserve 
and retain the national curiosities and wonders of the park in their natural 
condition. We do not contend that you have not the power to grant this 
application, but we do insist that the proper conditions for such grant do 
not now exist. That it should be the policy of this department to retain 
these reservoir sites as a public trust is shown by the report of the Yosemite 
Park Commission, found in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior trans¬ 
mitting the same to the Senate under date of December 5th, 1904, p. 9 et 
seq., in the proceedings in this matter heretofore referred to, in the letters 
of J. B. Lippincott in 1905 respecting these and similar reservoir sites and 
the action of this department thereon, in the action of Congress and the 
President respecting this reservation and in many other documents submitted 
herein. W T e concede for the purpose of this argument, that the City of San 
Francisco may come to the Tuolumne River for her water, though there is a 
serious legal question as to that right, should it conflict with out rights, a 
question we may be compelled to raise at some time, but not here and now. 
W r e also so concede that the Tuolumne can furnish sufficient water for San 
Francisco, our districts and any other people who can use it, provided its 
waters are properly conserved and utilized, though that seems now to be a 
proposition as to which there may be some doubt. We do not, we never 
have and I think we never will claim that San Francisco, or anyone else, 
may not store flood, waste, extra seasonal or other waters which we can not 
use, and use it so far as we are concerned, though the applicant for these 
reservoir sites seems anxious to make it appear that this is an issue between 
us, perhaps for the purpose of directing attention from the real issue, which 
we claim is as to the control of these reservoir sites. 

Unfortunately, perhaps, for us, we have not yet been able to obtain the 
means to enable us to utilize these reservoirs; fortunately, on the other 
hand, the necessity for such use has not yet become so pressing as it will be in 
the future. Consequently we ask that you, representing the department 
which has their control, retain such control pursuant to the policy above sug¬ 
gested. The granting of this application is urged on behalf of the City of 
San Francisco, and much is said as to her claims in the matter, which we 
submit you are not called upon at this time to consider. Your plans of the 
projectors have been regularly submitted and approved in accordance with 
the local regulations, adopted in pursuance of the law placing this trust in 
your hands, require that the application shall be accompanied by proof 
“that the laws"—San Francisco, as a municipality, has no plans respecting 


202 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


this matter. Its powers are defined by its charter. That charter prescribes, 
as the first step towards the acquisition of a municipal water supply, that 
when the board of supervisors “shall determine that the public interest or 
necessity demands the acquisition—it shall specifically declare such deter¬ 
mination by ordinance. ” No such determination has been made and no such 
ordinance passed. And it seems doubtful, if we are to credit the state 
ments of the parties interested, as found in the proceedings of the Common 
wealth Club, whether it ever will be. You are asked, by granting this appli 
cation, to cloud the rights and privileges of these irrigation districts, whose 
people have built their homes on the faith that you would protect them, in 
behalf of a “plan” which has no existence, except in the minds of a few 
well meaning champions. We submit that this should not be done, but that 
you should retain control of these storage sites, holding them in trust foi 
those who may have a right therein. 

We call special attention to this proposition since it has an important 
bearing on the question before you and the applicant seems desirous of 
having it overlooked. In “Appendix A”, page 8, submitted with the brief 
in support of this application, provisions of the charter of San Francisco are 
set out, which provisions are entirely different, and materially so as to the 
matter before you, from the present charter, which is to be found in the 
Cal. Stat. p. 591. Under the provisions quoted, an engineer presented to the 
board of supervisors plans and estimates. This was merely a matter of 
routine. Those plans have now become obsolete; as Mr. Manson himself 
says “it would take at least a year to again make the necessary studies and 
comparisons. ’ ’ Under the present charter the first step is the determina¬ 
tion, specifically declared by ordinances, that the public interest or necessity 
demands the acquisition. Until this declaration is made we claim that the 
City has no standing in support of this application. It matters not that its 
engineer has in his report stated that he favors such acquisition, that Mr. 
Phelan has “surreptitiously” made the application now asked to be granted, 
that he has, as it now seems, assigned his claims under said application to 
San Francisco, that the Board of Supervisors, after having abandoned its 
intention to attempt to secure control of these reservoir sites repealed such 
abandonment and authorized Mr. Manson to represent it before you to get 
you to grant such control, that he assumes the right to agree to certain very 
material things, the question remains whether San Francisco, as a munici¬ 
pality, has the power, under its charter, to do all these things; if not, what 
assurance have we that these so-called agreements will be carried out? We 
prefer to be protected by the Government in the exercise of its functions 
under the law, and not to have it turn over these reservoir sites to be man¬ 
aged by parties whose interests are adverse to ours. 

As heretofore suggested, there are many matters of detail which will 
doubtless be considered by you before making a decision, but which we do 
not wish to undertake to discuss in this brief, leaving them for your exam¬ 
ination upon the papers and records submitted by both parties, and resting 
our argument on the proposition: That we have an unquestioned right to be 
protected by the preservation of these reservoir sites for future use; that it 
should be the policy of your department to so protect them; that San Fran¬ 
cisco has not taken the necessary legal steps to be entitled to claim from you 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


203 


the grant herein asked; and that the applications, if granted, should be on 
such terms as will make it clear and definite that our rights will be pro 
tected. 

Respectfully submitted, 

P. J. HAZEN, 

Attorney for Turlock Irrigation District. 


204 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SAN FRANCISCO 
FOR RESERVOIR RIGHTS OF WAY IN HETCH 

HETCHY VALLEY. 

REPLY TO THE STATEMENT AND ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL ON 
BEHALF OF MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

To the Honorable James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior: 

The statement of historical facts, area of districts, etc., are matters of 
record, and have no immediate bearing upon the validity and force of the 
application of San Francisco for reservoir rights of way in the two reservoirs 
selected. 

Counsel admits that the supply of the district was considered from the 
Stanislaus River rather than from Tuolumne River (page 3 of counsel’s 
statement), yet on page 14, under the heading “Claims of the District,” 
subdivision “Third,” he alleges that the lands cannot secure a supply else¬ 
where, when the storage and discharge of the next river north, the Stanislaus, 
and the next river south, the Merced, are available for the purposes of these 
districts, and the Stanislaus was considered as preferable until it was shown 
that the Tuolumne was iess costly. 

Counsel presents no legal claims nor filings as the basis of the right 
of the districts, and bases his argument on certain remote and intangible 
“equitable prior rights” to the reservoirs in question It will be necessary 
to address myself principally to the objections urged to granting the 
application of, San Francisco for the privilege of storing waste waters in 
reservoir sites under the direct control of the Government and held as a 
trust until legal application shall be made to utilize them for the beneficent 
purposes/ mentioned in the law of February 15, 1901; and, so far as the 
undersigned is advised, the application by San Francisco for these rights 
is the only legal application before the Honorable the Secretary of the 
Interior. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION OF 

SAN FRANCISCO ANSWERED. 

“First. It must be conceded that these districts, and also the land con¬ 
tiguous thereto dependent upon the Tuolumne River for irrigation, both 
upon principles of justice and with a view to the most enlightened public 
policy (in addition to any legal claims),* have certain equitable prior rights 
to the waters of the Tuolumne River necessary for the beneficial irrigation 
of such lands. 

“Storage is even now required, and such demand will be of increasing 
insistence. This necessity for storage will not be questioned. 

“If it be conceded that water for domestic use is a higher purpose, and 
that water used for irrigation may properly be taken for such higher use, 
and if the claim of San Francisco is based upon this theory, then this pro¬ 
ceeding is in the nature of the exercise of the right of eminent domain 


*These legal claims are nowhere set forth. 





SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


205 


to condemn property put to a lower for a higher use. Before such condemna¬ 
tion can be made it must be shown as an absolute certainty that no other 
supply is available; that is, before San Francisco can condemn the water 
supply of these lands she must show that such condemnation is a necessity, 
and that an adequate water supply can not be obtained elsewhere. It is 
admitted that these ‘extra seasonal’ waters or some of them are necessary 
for the irrigation of this land, and that it has been shown that San Fran¬ 
cisco cannot obtain an adequate supply elsewhere. Indeed, on the contrary, 
it appears that such supply can be obtained from sources in which there are 
no othei interests to be jeopardized, and therefore the condition precedent 
to right of condemnation does not exist.” 

It may be conceded that the districts are now in need of stored water, 
but according to counsel s admission, the remaining reservoirs upon Tuol¬ 
umne River and those upon the Stanislaus River remain available for this 
purpose, and nowhere does counsel show that the districts are prepared 
to utilize these or any other reservoir sites by their own exertions and efforts. 

The contention that the utilisation of reservoirs under the control and 
trust of the Government and not now in use is in the nature of a con¬ 
demnation of properties belonging to and in the use of the districts, is an 
objection which cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, but the mere 
statement of the case, as it exists, refutes the objection; and on behalf of 
San Francisco, the undersigned sees no basis for the statement that the 
utilization of unused reservoirs, through legal and prior applications therefor, 
is in the nature of condemnation proceedings against those whose rights 
to and uses of water are in nowise interfered with. Before such condemna¬ 
tion can be alleged, “it must be shown as an absolute certainty” that San 
Francisco proposes to take waters now in use, instead of storing waste 
flood waters which in seasons of high water are far in excess of any 
demand which can be made upon them. It would therefore appear that 
the “condition precedent to right of condemnation does not exist” and can¬ 
not be appealed to, even as an “objection.” 

“Second. If it be conceded that at the present time there is both 
sufficiency of w r ater and of storage reservoirs for the immediate needs of 
San Francisco, and indeed for the needs for some years to come, under 
a recent act of the Legislature of this State, various municipal corporations 
can unite together to obtain a water supply. All of the cities of the bay 
are so situated as practically to constitute one municipality and are in the 
same situation with regard to a water supply as in San Francisco. Any 
supply from the Sierras of necessity must sooner or later be utilized by 
all of these cities, and within a very few years the figures given for the 
supply of San Francisco will be doubled, or more than doubled, and if any 
priorities are once conceded to such municipalities, it is only a question of 
time until it may be made to appear that public policy demands so great 
an increase of supply as (so far as is shown by present information) to 
deprive these districts of any supply of water whatever.” 

This objection is based on conditions which do not exist and relates to 
questions not before the Honorable Secretary. It is, therefore, not a valid 
objection. 

“Third. Even if it be conceded at the present time that the actual flow 
of water is inadequate, there is not yet sufficient data at hand to determine 
as to the sufficiency of storage capacities. 


206 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


“The Geological Survey has caused estimates to be made of fourteen 
of the most feasible reservoir sites on the drainage basin of the Tuolumne 
River. These sites have an estimated capacity of 287,261 acre feet. 

“An examination of the flow of the Tuolumne River shows that in two 
years out of seven the district would be compelled to depend almost entirely 
upon stored waters from and after the first of July, and that in two more 
years out of the same seven, the normal flow of the river during July 
must of necessity be considerably supplemented by stored waters. 

“We are' entitled to guard against the smallest possible supply. After 
the month of July, for the beneficial irrigation of the lands within the 
districts, and taking into consideration the loss by seepage and evapora¬ 
tion, it is not unreasonable to require the impounding of 100,000 acre feet 
as the very minimum. The land now outside of the district cannot, in 
ordinary years, except much water from the normal flow of the river, after 
the middle of June, and would require a larger proportion of stored water 
than the districts. If a very conservative estimate be made, 100,000 acre feet 
would be a moderate statement of the demands of that land, so that the 
very lowest conservative estimate of the storage requirements of the land 
beneficially irrigated would be 200,000 acre feet, or an amount almost 
equal to the capacity of the storage reservoirs at present surveyed. 

“These suggestions are not made for the purpose of demonstrating the 
impossibility of a sufficient supply for the bay municipalities and these dis¬ 
tricts, but to show that at the present time we have not adequate data upon 
which any proper apportionment of the water can be made.” 

This objection is based on allegations as to the sufficiency or insufficiency 
of storage capacities which are in part available to the districts when they 
shall be in a condition to utilize the same, as well as the storage which 
they formerly considered as available in the Stanislaus Drainage Basin. 

The argument that the water supply of the districts must be increased 
by storage is likewise applicable to the need for a domestic and municipal 
supply of San Francisco, and the objections of counsel are based not on 
insufficiency of waste flood waters, but on the utilization of two out of 
fourteen available reservoirs in the Tuolumne Basin and on an unknown 
number in the Basin of the Stanislaus, which, in the event of favorable 
action upon the application of San Francisco, are yet available for the 
districts when their necessities and means justify the development of 
remaining sources and other reservoirs. 

The argument that adequate data are not available upon which to base 
an apportionment of the water is of no avail, when it has been and can be 
irrefutably shown that the flood discharge of the Tuolumne River is far in 
excess of all possible future demands, and that San Francisco applies only 
for permission to utilize a portion of this waste for the highest purposes 
for which water can be used, and bases her claim upon the first legal appli¬ 
cation for the right to so use these waters by storage. 

“Fourth. In the absence of a showing that San Francisco cannot ob¬ 
tain, at reasonable cost, a proper and adequate supply of water elsewhere, 
we submit that the districts are entitled to have taken into considration not 
the average flow of the river, but the smallest recorded flow; that is, so 
long as water can be obtained elsewhere for the bay municipalities, these 
districts should not be condemned to the risk of any shortage of water even 
in seasons of abnormally small rainfall. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


207 


According to the records kept by the Geological Survey, in the year 
1898 the total discharge in acre feet at La Grange, the location of the 
dam of the districts, was 854,496. 

If it be conceded that only 200,000 acres of the districts will be under 
irrigation, and if the normal rainfall be taken at twelve inches (although 
in most years the rainfall is much less than that), taking into consideration 
seepage and evaporation, the land within these two districts would require 
a supply of 600,000 acre feet from the river. If the land outside of the 
districts be considered at all, an excessively conservative and moderate 
estimate would place their demand at 300,000 acre feet, making a total 
requirement from the river during the year of 900,000 acre feet, or an 
amount in excess of the total discharge of the river in that year, even if 
the prior appropriation of the La Grange ditch be not deducted. 

“It must also be recognized that a very considerable portion of the 
flood waters can not, under present conditions, be conserved, and that a very 
large portion of the 854,496 acre feet could not be utilized. 

Admitting that this was a very unusual year, such deficiency is apt 
to happen again, and, as has been stated before in this brief, it is the 
possibility of avoiding, so far as man’s ingenuity may be able to avoid, the 
inequalities of a natural supply of water that justifies the expense of an 
irrigation system. If after all the expense and labor of a complicated and 
difficult irrigation system the lands are to be relegated to the uncertainty 
of water existing without such system, the labor will be in vain.” 

Counsel not only pleads for an exorbitant and wasteful use of 600,000 
acre feet for the districts, but extends this wasteful use to lands beyond 
the districts in an attempt to plead that a great municipality should be denied 
the right to store waste flood waters in unused reservoirs for which it is 
the first legal applicant. 

Attention is especially called to the statement of counsel “that a very 
large portion of the 854,498 acre feet could not be utilized” and to the 
fact that this is the extreme minimum yearly discharge of the river. It is 
the utilization of this very large portion, which counsel alleges cannot be 
utilized, which San Francisco asks the privilege of storing and using for 
domestic supply. 

During all other years of observation, other than the one on which this 
objection is based, the volume of waste or “unutilizable” waters is far in ex¬ 
cess of the figures above mentioned. 

In further refutation of counsel’s allegations as to the insufficiency of 
water, there are submitted two diagrams showing:—(1) The daily and mean 
annual discharge; (2) total monthly and total annual discharge; (3) the 
daily actual diversions of water by Turlock and Modesto canals for 1905; 
(4) the relation of a draft of two (2) acre feet for the entire area of the 
districts and of a total ultimate draft of 200,000,000 gallons per day for San 
Francisco, to the annual discharge. These two combined drafts are less than 
the minimum annual discharge by over 110,OCX) acre feet. 

These excellent and irrefutable demonstrations of the sufficiency of the 
supply were prepared by Mr. Jno. D. Galloway, M. Am. Soc. C. E. 

It will be observed: (1) that the minimum annual discharge is far in ex¬ 
cess of the total demands as above outlined; (2) that the discharge of the 
river is in excess of the combined capacities of the two canals during all 
irrigation months except the latter half of July, August and September, before 


208 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


which period many crops have either been harvested or fully perfected; (3) 
that no possible development of irrigation could make use of the full flood 
discharges occurring at intervals from year to year during any one of the 
remaining nine months; (4) that only when such flood excesses occur is it 
proposed to store water for domestic and municipal uses, and that such storage 
tends to lessen damage by floods; (5) that the area of both districts is known 
to contain sub-surface waters, which can be utilized for irrigation, as is done 
elsewhere more cheaply than by expensive storage and diversion works. 

Under the heading “Claims of the District,” counsel asks, 

“First: That a clear and distinct recognition be made (by Congressional 
grant should it be desired) of their prior rights to all waters of the river 
necessary for the beneficial irrigation of the lands included within the bound¬ 
aries thereof, whether such waters constitute the normal flow or are so-called 
waste or storm waters, so that the risk, if any, of a deficiency fall upon San 
Francisco. The amount of this water may be agreed upon.” 

The prior rights of the districts are limited to such waters as under the 
laws of the State they have legally appropriated, diverted and put to beneficial 
use. This prior right is limited in law to the maximum capacity of their 
works as at present constructed. They have an unestablished claim to a 
maximum of some 2500 second feet, which claim San Francisco is willing to 
recognize and sacredly regard and avoid trespassing thereon to the slightest 
extent, whenever the districts shall have stored or caused to be stored for 
their use such waters as will bring the discharge up to this, as yet unestab¬ 
lished, right. 

The assumption that any risk of deficiency should fall upon San Fran¬ 
cisco, provided San Francisco shall incur the expense of storing waters for the 
especial purpose of avoiding the serious consequences of such deficiency, is 
a plea that cannot be entertained nor considered in any shape or form. The 
very application which San Francisco makes is to avoid the risk of a deficiency 
in the service and protection of the homes of her citizens. 

“Second: That in any grant of reservoir sites which may be made, reser¬ 
voir sites of sufficient capacity to store the water necessary for these districts 
be reserved, or, if the supply for municipal purposes and for these irrigation 
districts be taken from the same reservoirs, that the prior right of the districts 
thereto be protected by adequate acts of Congress clearly defining and per¬ 
manently fixing such rights.” 

According to counsel, the demands or “prior rights” of the districts and 
of lands adjacent thereto amount to 900,000 acre feet, an amount greater than 
the minimum yearly discharge of the river and including a very considerable 
portion of the flood waters which could not be utilized. Counsel therefore 
asks for not only far more storage than is available, but for flood waters 
which he admits “could not be utilized!” 

San Francisco does not admit the claim that the district should be pro¬ 
tected by proposed action by Congress entitling others to the enjoyment and 
use for an inferior purpose of waste and unused waters which that munici¬ 
pality proposes to store for the highest purpose. 

“Third : It is suggested on behalf of the districts also, that while the 
land contained therein amounts to about 250,000 acres, there is adjacent to 
these districts lying upon the foothills and between the foothills and the 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts about 200,000 acres of land now 
arid or semi-arid, susceptible or irrigation from the Tuolumne River, and 


SHEET No 38 

DIAGRAM SHOWING THE TOTAL DISCHARGE IN ACRE 
FEET OF THE TUOLUMNE RIVER AT MODESTO FROM 
1879-1883 AND AT LAGRANGE FROM 1896-1908. ALSO 
THE AMOUNT OF WATER REQUIRED TO FURNISH SAN 
FRANCISCO WITH 200,000,000 GALLONS PER DAY. ALSO 
AMOUNT OF WATER TO COVER THE 260,000 ACRES OF 
THE TURLOCK AND MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICTS 
WITH A TWO-FOOT DEPTH. 

BY J. D. GALLOWAY, 

Civil Engineer. 























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


209 


w ich must depend for its water supply upon that river. Much of this land 

1S1 " the Cltms belt ’ and is the most profitable and productive land in the State 
of California, and a wise public policy should protect it from being condemned 
to a condition of sterility, as it would be should adequate provisions not be 
made for its protection. This land cannot be irrigated without storage reser¬ 
voirs, as in most of the years the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts 
will take all of the normal flow during the period when such irrigation is 
desirable. 

The preservation of the use and productivity of this land is of greater 
public importance than the question of mere convenience of a municipal sup¬ 
ply. San Francisco can go elsewhere for water; these lands cannot.” 

This claim is measured by the needs of lands outside of the districts, and, 
as it is to waters arising beyond and wasted beyond the limits of the districts, 
it does not appear a valid claim. 

The argument that ‘‘San Francisco can go elsewhere for water” is but 
to state that San Francisco can rely upon any one of several exorbitantly 
high and speculative schemes which have fallen into the hands of private 
parties of corporations, and it is to avoid the prohibitive demands of these 
owners that San Francisco asks the right to make use of unused reservoir 
spaces held in trust by the Government. Counsel’s own admission, as else¬ 
where pointed out (see opening statement of counsel), is to the effect that 
Modesto District can secure water from the Stanislaus River and that this 
source has been seriously considered. 

The fourth claim that the so-called equitable rights of the districts are 
prior to any claim of San Francisco, and the suggestion that the sites selected 
by San Francisco be held to be developed by the Reclamation Service under 
laws which do not yet exist, and that San Francisco be permitted to use 
sites for which she is not an applicant, do not appear to the undersigned as 
a foundation for a legal claim. 

Counsel fails in his conclusion to show any legal and valid claim as a 
basis of objection to the granting to San Francisco of a legal and valid claim 
to the two reservoir sites applied for. Counsel admits that a large portion 
of the waste flood waters must inevitably go to waste, and urges no good 
reason why such waters should not be stored for domestic and municipal 
supply. 

Counsel argues in favor of an exorbitant use of water beyond the reason¬ 
able necessities of the land within the district, and, after showing that another 
source than Tuolumne River (namely, Stanislaus River) was seriously con¬ 
sidered, claims that the lands of the district he represents are absolutely de¬ 
pendent upon the particular river the waste flood waters of which San Fran¬ 
cisco applies for the right to store and use. 

Counsel argues that the districts which have not come as supplicants for 
rights held in trust by the Government should be permitted to raise objections 
to those who do ask that these rights held in trust by the Government should 
be granted for the highest use, and that waters stored for this use at the ex¬ 
pense of the applicant should be shared by those who have not been called 
upon to incur any of the expense of storage. Counsel’s argument and objec¬ 
tion seem to be addressed to the especial object of securing a delay in the 
granting of these rights in order that insuperable objections may be later 
injected by an application to Congress to pass laws which shall prevent the 
acquisition of a pure and adequate supply of water for the highest purposes 


210 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


from sources which are unused and which are the property of the People of 
the United States and not of any especial district or region, and which are 
obtainable by the application of laws now in force anl with which the repre¬ 
sentatives of the City have fully complied. 

In declining to play the part of Lazarus, which counsel assumes has been 
offered, it may be well to guard against playing the part of another character 
mentioned in the fables of Aesop. 

San Francisco has failed to recognize any priorities on the part of the 
districts by reason of the fact that nowhere can these prior claims be found 
of legal record, and in no statement or argument of counsel have they been set 
forth, defined or shown to be of legal existence. 

Very respectfully submitted. 

MARSDEN MANSON. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


211 


IN THE MATTER OE THE APPLICATION OF SAN FRANCISCO 

FOR RESERVOIR RIGHTS OF WAY IN HETCH HETCHY VALLEY. 

The Honorable The Secretary of the Interior. 

Sir On July 24th last you accorded a hearing to the parties at interest 
in the matter of reservoir rights of way in Hetch Hetchy and Lake Eleanor. 

It was then agreed that the city’s case should be presented in ten (10) 
days to the attorneys of Turlock and Modesto Districts; and, that they should 
have thirty days in which to reply, and that the case should be submitted to 
you on September 15th. The city’s case was so presented on August 2nd. 
Meetings were subsequently held both in Modesto and San Francisco to ad¬ 
just an agreed case, and letters passed without result. Subsequent to urgent 
requests by mail, telegraph and telephone that the brief of Turlock District 
be submitted on or before September 2nd, the subjoined correspondence 
passed: 

Office of P. J. Hazen, Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law. 

Modesto, Stanislaus County, Cal., September 4th, 1907. 
Mr. Marsden Manson, C. E., 

801 Union Trust Building, San Francisco, California. 

Dear Sir:—I telegraphed and telephoned you to-day, in response to your 
messages, that I would send you “galley proof” of my brief, thinking that I 
would be able to do so. My brief has been in the printer’s hands for a week. 
He has done everything he could to get it out. But the manager went to the 
Irrigation Congress, the type operator struck and quit his job, the machine 
went on a strike and consequently, what I promised and expected to perform 
is impossible; the proof is not forthcoming. 

However, you need not be delayed, as I enclose copy of “Exhibit C,” 
“Exhibit A” is copy of the brief heretofore submitted and which I have sent 
to you and “Exhibit B” is copies of letters which I have sent to you, and the 
brief proper is merely an attempt to present in brief terms what you have 
heretofore had from us. 

Just as soon as I can get the whole thing in print, I will send it to you. 

Yours truly, 

P. J. HAZEN. 

San Francisco, Cal., Sept. 6th, 9 a. m. 
P. J. Hazen, Esq., Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law, 

Modesto, Cal. 

My Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 4th inst., postmarked on the back of 
the envelope San Francisco, Sept. 5th, 2 :30 p. m., was delivered at my office 
at 5 p. m. yesterday. The mailing postmark is illegible. 

The enclosed paper entitled “Exhibit C,” “Miscellaneous data and remarks 
respecting water flow, progress of the districts, etc. 

This exhibit is principally data known to me or readily accessible, and 
consequently can not take the place of a brief to be submitted to the Secretary 
of the Interior. 

As informed by previous letter, “Exhibit A” has never reached me. 
“Exhibit B,” which is to consist of letters which are “informal” and “desul- 
will not give me a definite idea of what the brief, which at this date 

is not before me, is to be. 


212 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


I leave to-morrow morning on a business trip to London, and will be 
absent for more than a month. I do not intend, if I can possibly prevent it, 
that the Hon. Secretary shall be delayed in rendering his decision at his earliest 
convenience after the 15th inst. I feel, therefore, compelled to decline to ac¬ 
cept “Exhibit C” and previous letters as taking the place of a brief which I 
feel should have been in my hands by the 1st inst., and to request the Honor¬ 
able Secretary of the Interior to decline to accept any brief on behalf of the 
Turlock District. 

Respectfully yours, 

MARSDEN MANSON. 


There are powerful influences outside the Districts which can and will inter¬ 
pose long, if not fatal, delays through Congress, if this matter 'goes over 
beyond the meeting of that body. These delays will greatly injure the interests 
of this city which demand that steps be at once taken to procure an adequate 
and pure increase in our, at present, deflcient water supply. 

I therefore feel it an imperative duty to request: 

1st. That under the above circumstances you decline to consider any 
brief which has not been presented to the representative of the city for con¬ 
sideration and reply. 

2nd. That, if consistent with the great responsibilites of your high office, 
your decision be rendered prior to the meeting of Congress. 

Very respectfully submitted. 

MARSDEN MANSON, 

On behalf of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco. 


Sept. 6th, 1907. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


213 


PETITION OF MARSDEN MANSON, CITY ENGINEER OF SAN 
I RANCISCO, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF 
SAN FRANCISCO TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 
DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., TO RE-OPEN THE 
MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JAMES D. PHELAN, FOR 
RESERVOIR RIGHTS OF WAY IN THE HETCH HETCHY 
VALLEY AND LAKE ELEANOR SITES IN THE YOSEMITE 
NATIONAL PARK. 

Washington, D. C., May 7, 1908. 

The Honorable Secretary of the Interior. 

Sir: On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, I respectfully 
petition you to exercise your supervisory authority, and re-open the matter 
of the application of James D. Phelan for reservoir rights of way in the Hetch 
Hetchy Valley and Lake Eleanor sites in the Yosemite National Park. This 
application was made October 15, 1901, by James D. Phelan then mayor in 
conjunction with an effort that was being made to secure an adequate and 
pure supply of water for the City and County of San Francisco, and was 
assigned to said City and County February 20, 1903, in order to carry out 
the original intent in making the application and that the city might be of 
record as the successor to any rights that may have been gained by the appli¬ 
cation. Subsequently, on December 22, 1903, the application was rejected on 
the ground that the Secretary of the Interior did not have power to allow 
such right of way within the Yosemite National Park. Thereafter I, as the 
representative of the said City and County came to Washington and asked 
for a re-consideration of the matter. . This re-consideration was granted in 
the form of a request for an opinion from the Attorney-General concerning the 
Secretaries contention that he did not have the power. The Attorney-General 
held that the Secretary of the Interior had full power, and that it was merely 
a matter of administrative judgment as to whether the application for rights 
of way should or should not be granted. 

I was of the opinion that the steps taken by the City and County of San 
Francisco, through me, to have this matter re-considered was a formal action 
which kept the application alive, but it seems that according to the technical 
and strict interpretation of the rules of practice of the Department of the 
Interior, that my supposition was incorrect and that the maps of location were 
formally rejected and returned to the City and County, where they remained 
and were destroyed by fire following the earthquake in April 1906. I learned 
recently that the case was technically closed, but I find that the practice of 
your department will permit, through the exercise of supervisory authority, 
the curing of a technical action made final through mistake of an applicant, 
especially when great public interests and equities are involved. 

I caused exact retracements of certified copies of the original maps of 
location to be made and Mr. Phelan filed them in your department in 
1907. As the City Engineer, directly in charge of these matters, I have certified 
that they are exact reproductions made under my personal direction of the 
original maps of location. I, therefore, ask that you treat them as though they 
were originals, and in view of all of the circumstances mentioned above, the 


214 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


great needs of the City of San Francisco for an adequate and pure water sup¬ 
ply, and the fact that I have been authorized to act for the city in this matter 
by a resolution of the Board of Supervisors (a certified copy of which resolu¬ 
tion I will obtain from San Francisco at the earliest practicable moment and 
file with this petition), urge that you treat the application of James D. Phelan, 
afterwards assigned to the city of San Francisco, as though it had never 
technically lapsed. 

As the Engineer of the city, I have gathered from years of careful and 
scientific study of the sites themselves, information concerning the capacity 
of the sites applied for, and the tributary drainage areas, and I am confident 
that the city could not afford to develop the Lake Eleanor site alone without 
every assurance possible to be given by the government that the Hetch Hetchy 
site will be available as soon as the needs of the city exceed the Lake Eleanor 
storage capacity. For that reason I urge that the right to use both sites be 
now granted in order that the city may proceed in its work with a degree of 
security. 

If the application for both reservoir sites is granted, I offer and agree on 
behalf of the city, that its application for the two reservoir sites may be ap¬ 
proved upon the basis of the following conditions which will be furnished if 
you desire, in the form of a stipulation, approved by resolution of the Board 
of Supervisors, and duly executed under the seal of the city of San Francisco. 

The City and County of San Francisco will agree to the following 
stipulations: 

1. The City of San Francisco practically owns all the patented land in 
the floor of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir site and sufficient adjacent areas in the 
Yosemite National Park and the Sierra National Forest to equal the remainder 
of that reservoir area. The city will surrender to the United States equivalent 
areas outside of the reservoir sites and within the National Park and adjacent 
reserves in exchange for the remaining land in the reservoir sites, for which 
authority from Congress will be obtained if necessary. 

2. The City and County of San Francisco distinctly understands and 
agrees that all the rules and regulations for the government of the Park, now 
or hereafter in force, shall be applicable to its holdings within the Park and 
that except to the extent that the necessary use of its holdings for the exclu- 
cive purpose of storing and protecting water for the uses herein specified will 
be interfered with, the public may have the full enjoyment thereof, undei 
regulations fixed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

3. The City and County of San Francisco will develop the Lake Eleanor 
site to its full capacity before beginning the development of the Hetch Hetchy 
site, and the development of the latter will be begun only when the needs of 
the City and County of San Francisco and adjacent cities, which may join 
with it in obtaining a common water supply, may require such further develop¬ 
ment : As the drainage area tributary to Lake Eleanor will not yield, under 
the conditions herein imposed, sufficient run-off in dry years to replenish the 
reservoir, a diverting dam and canal from Cherry Creek to Lake Eleanor reser¬ 
voir for the conduct of waste flood or extra-seasonal waters to said reservoir, 
is essential for the development of the site to its full capacity, and will be 
constructed if permission is given by the Secretary of the Interior. 

4. The City and County of San Francisco, and any other city or cities 
which may, with the approval of the municipal authorities, join with said 
eCity and County of San Francisco in obtaining a common water supply, will 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


215 


not interfere in the slightest particular with the right of the Modesto Irrigation 
District and the Turlock Irrigation District to use the natural flow of the 
Tuolumne River and its branches to the full extent of their claims, as follows: 
Turlock Irrigation District, 1500 second feet; Modesto Irrigation District, 850 
second feet, these districts having respectively appropriated the foregoing 
amounts of water under the laws of the State of California. 

To the end that these rights may be fully protected, San Francisco will 
stipulate not to store nor cause to be stored, divert, nor cause to be diverted 
from the Tuolumne River or any of its branches, any of the natural flow of 
said river when desired for use by said districts, for any beneficial purpose, 
unless this natural flow of the river and tributaries above La Grange dam be 
in excess of the actual capacities of the canals of said districts, even when 
they shall have been brought up to the full volumes named, 1500 second feet 
for the Turlock Irrigation District and 850 second feet for the Modesto Irriga¬ 
tion District. 

5. The City and County of San Francisco will in no way interfere with 
the storage of flood waters, in sites other than Hetch Hetchy and Lake Elean¬ 
or by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts or either of said districts, 
for use in said districts, and will return to the Tuolumne River above the 
La Grange dam, for the use of said Irrigation Districts, all surplus or waste 
flow of the river which may be used for power. 

6. The City and County of San Francisco will upon request sell to said 
Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts for the use of any land owner or 
owners therein for pumping sub-surface water for drainage or irrigation any 
excess of electric power which may be generated such as may not be used 
for the water supply herein provided and for the actual municipal purposes of 
the City and County of San Francisco, which purposes shall not include sale 
to private persons nor to corporations) at such price as will actually reim¬ 
burse the said City- and County for developing and transmitting the surplus 
electrical energy thus sold, the price in case of dispute to be fixed by the Secre¬ 
tary of the Interior; and no power plant shall be interposed on the line of flow 
except by the said City and County except for the purposes and under the limi¬ 
tations above set forth. 

7. The City and County of San Francisco will agree that the Secretary 
of the Interior shall at his discretion, or when called upon by either the City 
or the Districts to do so, direct the apportionment and measurement of the 
water in accordance with the terms of the preceding clauses of this stipulation. 

8. The City and County of San Francisco, when it begins the develop¬ 
ment of the Hetch Hetchy site, will undertake and vigorously prosecute to 
completion a dam at least 150 feet high, with a foundation capable of sup¬ 
porting the dam when built to its greatest economic and safe height, and 
whenever, in the opinion of the Engineer in charge of the reservoirs on behalf 
of said City and County and of the municipalities sharing in this supply, the 
volume of water on storage in the reservoirs herein applied for is in excess 
of the seasonal requirements of said municipalities, and that it is safe to do 
so, that such excess will be liberated at such times and in such amounts as 
said districts may designate, at a price to said districts not to exceed the pro¬ 
portionate cost of storage and sinking fund chargeable to the volumes thus 
liberated, the price in case of dispute to be fixed by the Secretary of the In¬ 
terior ; provided, that no prescriptive or other right shall ever inure or attach 
to said districts by user or otherwise to the water thus liberated. 


216 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


9. The City and County of San Francisco will, within two years after 
the grant by the Secretary of the Interior of the rights hereby applied for, 
submit the question of said water supply to the vote of its citizens as required 
by its charter, and within three years thereafter, if such vote be affirmative 
will commence the actual construction of the Lake Eleanor dam and will carry 
the same to completion with all reasonable diligence, so that said reservoir may 
be completed within five years after the commencement thereof, unless such 
times herein before specified shall be extended by the Secretary of the Interior 
for cause shown by the City, or the construction delayed by litigation; and 
unless the construction of said reservoir is authorized by a vote of the said 
City and County and said work is commenced, carried on and completed with¬ 
in the times herein specified, all rights granted hereunder shall revert to the 
Government. 

MARSDEN MANSON. 


(Filed with Board of Supervisors May 18, 1908, by Marsden Manson, City 
Engineer.) 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


217 


DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR DEPART¬ 
MENT, WASHINGTON, D. C., GRANTING THE CITY AND 
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDI¬ 
TIONS, RESERVOIR SITES AND RIGHTS OF WAY AT 
LAKE ELEANOR AND HETCH HETCHY VALLEY IN THE 
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, May 11, 1908. 

Water Supply, City of San Francisco—Application for Lake Eleanor and 
Hetch Hetchy Valley Reservoir Sites. Act of February 15,1901. 

The Commissioner of the General Land Office. 

Sir:—October 15, 1901, James D. Phelan, then Mayor of the City of San 
Francisco, filed application for reservoir rights of way within the Yosemite 
National Park upon what are known as the Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy 
Valley reservoir sites. This application was made under the act of February 
15, 1901, and was in fact the application of the City made in the name of James 
D. Phelan to avoid the difficulties which beset a city if it must announce its 
business intentions to the public before securing options and rights necesseary 
for its project. This is not disputed, and the fact is corroborated by his as¬ 
signing to the City and County of San Francisco, on February 20,1903, all his 
rights under the above application. 

This application was considered by the Secretary of the Interior and, on 
December 22, 1903, rejected on the ground that he did not have the legal power 
to allow such a right of way within the Yosemite National Park. From that 
time to this the city has, with practical continuity, pressed its request for a per¬ 
mit to use these reservoir sites. The City failed, however, to take steps to re¬ 
open this case in the form prescribed by the Rules of Practice of this Depart¬ 
ment, and for that reason, technically had no application on file after December 
22, 1903. On the other hand, the City’s evident good faith and the strong evi¬ 
dence that it supposed its application was alive in the Department, is shown by 
the fact that at its request and solicitation the question of the power of the 
Secretary of the Interior to grant the rights of way applied for was referred to 
the Attorney-General, who, on October 28, 1905, held definitely that the Secre¬ 
tary of the Interior had full discretionary power to grant rights of way for 
reservoirs, irrigation, or hydro-electric purposes within the Park. 

When the Secretary’s decision of December 22, 1903, was made final, the 
maps of location for the two reservoir sites were returned to the City and 
unfortunately were destroyed by the fire which followed the earthquake of 
1906. Fortunately, however, exact tracings of these maps had been made by 
the City Engineer for use in court proceedings, and for that reason it has 
been possible to file exact reproductions of the original maps, certified by the 
City Engineer. When the attention of the City’s representative was called to 
the fact that technically the City had no application before the Department, 
he, on May 7, 1908, formally filed a petition requesting the Secretary of the 
Interior to exercise his supervisory authority and reopen the matter of the 
application of James D. Phelan for the reservoir rights in question, thus treat¬ 
ing it as though it had never lapsed. I have given most careful consideration 


218 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


to this petition, and have decided that the facts mentioned above are ample 
grounds for exercising my supervisory power and therefore reinstate the ap¬ 
plication of James D. Phelan, assigned to the City, as though the case had 
been technically kept alive since December 22, 1903, by specific compliance 
with the Rules of Practice of the Department. To this end the tracings of 
the original maps of location as recertified by Marsden Manson, City Engi¬ 
neer, on April 22, 1908, will be accepted in lieu of the original and treated 
accordingly. 

Congress, on February 15, 1901, provided specifically: 

“The Secretary of the Interior * * * is authorized * * * to permit the use of 
rights of way through * * * the Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National 
Parks, California, for * * * water conduits and for water plants, dams, 

and reservoirs used to promote * * * the supply of water for domestic, 

public, or other beneficial uses * * * provided that such permits shall be 

allowed within or through any of said parks * * * only upon the approval 
of the chief officer of the Department, under whose supervision such park or 
reservation falls, and upon a finding by him that the same is not incompatible 
with the public interest.” 

By these words Congress has given power to the Secretary of the Interior 
to grant the rights applied for by the City of San Francisco, if he finds that 
the permit “is not incompatible with the public interest.” Therefore I need 
only consider the effect of granting the application upon “the public interest.” 

In construing the words of a statue, the evident and ordinary meaning 
should be taken when such meaning is reasonable and not repugnant to the 
evident purpose of the law itself. On this broad principle the words “the 
public interest” should not be confined merely to the public interest in the 
Yosemite National Park for use as a park only, but rather the broader public 
interest which requires these reservoir sites to be utilized for the highest good 
to the greatest number of people. If Congress had intended to restrict the 
meaning to the mere interest of the public in the park as such, it surely would 
have used specific words to show that intent. At the time the act was passed 
there was no authority of law for the granting of privileges of this character 
in the Yosemite National Park. Congress recognized the interest of the public 
in the utilization of the great water resources of the Park and specifically gave 
power to the Secretary of the Interior to permit such use. The proviso was 
evidently added merely as a reminder that he should weigh well the public 
interest both in and out of the Park before making his decision. 

The present water supply of the City of San Francisco is both inadequate 
and unsatisfactory. This fact has been known for a number of years and has 
led to a very extensive consideration of the various possible sources of supply. 
The search for water for the City has been prosecuted from two diamet¬ 
rically opposite points of view. On the one side, the water companies, inter¬ 
ested in supplying the City with water for their own profit, have taken advan¬ 
tage of the long delay since it was first proposed to bring water from the 
Yosemite to San Francisco to look up and get control, so far as they could, 
of the available sources in order to sell them to the City. On the other hand, 
both the National Government and the City of San Francisco have made care¬ 
ful study of the possible sources of supply for the City. Four or five years 
ago, the Hydrographic Branch of the Geological Survey, after a careful 
examination by engineers of character and ability, reached the conclusion that 
the Tuolumne River offered a desirable and available supply for the City. 

) m 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


219 


The same conclusion was reached by the engineers of the City of San Fran¬ 
cisco after years of exhaustive investigation. 

I appreciate keenly the interest of the public in preserving the natural 
wonders of the Park and am unwilling that the Hetch Hetchy Valley site 
should be developed until the needs of the City are greater than can be sup¬ 
plied from the Lake Eleanor site when developed to its full capacity. Domes¬ 
tic use, however, especially for a municipal supply, is the highest use to which 
water and available storage basins therefor can be put. Recognizing this the 
City has expressed a willingness to regard the public interest in the Hetch 
Hetchy Valley and defer its use as long as possible. 

The next great use of water and water resources is irrigation. There are 
in the San Joaquin Valley two large irrigation districts, the Turlock and 
Modesto, which have already appropriated under State law 2,350 second feet 
of the normal flow of water through Lake Eleanor and Hetch Hetchy. The 
representatives of these districts protested strongly against the granting of 
the permit to San Francisco, being fearful that the future complete develop¬ 
ment of these irrigation communities would be materially hampered by the 
City’s use of water. After repeated conferences, however, with the represen¬ 
tatives of these irrigation districts I believe their rights can be fully safe¬ 
guarded, provided certain definite stipulations to protect the irrigators are 
entered into by the City. Fortunately, the City can agree to this, and the 
interest of the two users will not conflict. On the contrary, the City in 
developing its water supply will to a considerable extent help the irrigation 
districts in their further development. 

The only other source of objection, except that from persons and corpora¬ 
tions who have no rights to protect but merely the hope of financial gain if 
the application of the City is denied, comes from those who have a special 
interest in our National Parks from the standpoint of scenic effects, natural 
wonders, and health and pleasure resorts. I appreciate fully the feeling of 
these protestants and have considered their protests and arguments with great 
interest and sympathy. The use of these sites for reservoir purposes would 
interfere with the present condition of the Park, and that consideration should 
be weighed carefully against the great use which the City can make of the 
permit. I am convinced, however, that “the public interest” will be much bet¬ 
ter conserved by granting the permit. Hetch Pletchy Valley is great and beau¬ 
tiful in its natural and scenic effects. If it were also unique, sentiment for its 
preservation in an absolutely natural state would be far greater. In the mere 
vicinity, however, much more accessible to the public and more wonderful and 
beautiful, is the Yosemite Valley itself. Furthermore, the reservoir will not 
destroy Hetch Hetchy. It will scarcely affect the canyon walls. It will not 
reach the foot of the various falls which descend from the sides of the canyon. 
The prime change will be that, instead of a beautiful but somewhat unusable 
“meadow” floor, the valley will be a lake of rare beauty. 

As against this partial loss to the scenic effect of the Park, the advan¬ 
tages to the public from the change are many and great: The City of San 
Francisco and probably the other cities on San Francisco Bay would have one 
of the finest and purest water supplies in the world; the irrigable land in the 
Tuolumne and San Joaquin Valleys would be helped out by the use of the 
excess stored water and by using the electrical power not needed by the City 
for municipal purposes, to pump subterranean water foi the ii 1 igation of 
additional areas, the City would have a cheap and bountiful supply of electric 


220 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


energy for pumping its water supply and lighting the City and its municipal 
buildings; the public would have a highway at its disposal to reach this beau¬ 
tiful region of the Park heretofore practically inaccessible; this road would 
be built and maintained by the City without expense to the Government or the 
general public; the City has options on land held in private ownership within 
the Yosemite National Park, and would purchase this land and make it avail¬ 
able to the public for camping purposes; the settlers and entry men who 
acquired this land naturally chose the finest localities, and at present have 
power to exclude the public from the best camping places; and further the 
City in protecting its water supply would furnish to the public a patrol to save 
this part of the park from destructive and disfiguring forest fires. 

The floor of the Hetch Hetchy Valley, part of which is owned privately 
and used as a cattle ranch, would become a lake bordered by vertical granite 
walls or steep banks of broken granite. Therefore, when the water is drawn 
very low it will leave few muddy edges exposed. This lake, however, would 
be practically full during the greater part of the tourist season in each year, 
and there would be practically no difficulty in making trails and roads for the 
use of the tourists around the edges of the Valley above high water mark., 
The City of San Francisco, through its regularly authorized representative, 
has, in order to protect the interests most directly involved, agreed to file with 
the Secretary of the Interior a stipulation approved by specific resolution of the 
Board of Supervisors and duly executed under the seal of the City of San 
Francisco, as follows: 

‘T. The City of San Francisco practically owns all the patented land in 
the floor of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir site and sufficient adjacent areas in the 
Yosemite National Park and the Sierra National Forest to equal the remainder 
of that reservoir area. The City will surrender to the United States equivalent 
areas outside of the reservoir sites and within the National Park and adjacent 
reserves in exchange for the remaining land in the reservoir sites, for which 
authority from Congress will be obtained if necessary. 

Yosemite National Forest to equal the remainder of that reservoir area. The 
City will surrender to the United States equivalent areas outside of the reser¬ 
voir sites and within the National Park and adjacent reserves in exchange for 
the remaining land in the reservoir sites, for which authority from Congress 
will be obtained if necessary. 

“2. The City and County of San Francisco distinctly understands and 
agrees that all the rules and regulations for the government of the Park, now 
or hereafter in force, shall be applicable to its holdings within the Park and 
that except to the extent that the necessary use of its holdings for the exclu¬ 
sive purpose of storing and protecting water for the uses herein specified will 
be interfered with, the public may have the full enjoyment thereof, under 
regulations fixed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

“3. The City and County of San Francisco will develop the Lake Eleanor 
site to its full capacity before beginning the development of the Hetch Hetchy 
site, and the development of the latter will be begun only when the needs of 
the City and County of San Francisco and adjacent cities, which may join 
with it in obtaining a common water supply, may require such further de¬ 
velopment. As the drainage area tributary to Lake Eleanor will not yield, 
under the conditions herein imposed, sufficient run-off in dry years to replenish 
the reservoir, a diverting dam and canal from Cherry Creek to Lake Eleanor 
reservoir for the conduct of waste flood or extra-seasonal waters to said reser- 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


221 


voir, is essential for the development of the site to its full capacity, and will 
be constructed if permission is given by the Secretary of the Interior. 

4. The City and County of San Francisco, and any other city or cities 
which may, with the approval of the municipal authorities, join with said City 
and County of San Francisco in obtaining a common water supply, will not 
interfere in the slightest particular with the right of the Modesto Irrigation 
District and the Turlock Irrigation District to use the natural flow of the 
Tuolumne River and its branches to the full extent of their claims, as follows: 
Turlock Irrigation District, 1500 second feet; Modesto Irrigation District, 850 
second feet; these districts having respectively appropriated the foregoing 
amounts of water under the laws of the State of California. 

“To the end that these rights may be fully protected, San Francisco will 
stipulate not to store nor cause to be stored, divert, nor cause to be diverted 
from the Tuolumne River, or any of its branches, any of the natural flow of 
said river when desired for use by said districts, for any beneficial purpose, 
unless this natural flow of the river and tributaries above La Grange dam be 
in excess of the actual capacities of the canals of said districts, even when they 
shall have been brought up to the full volumes named, 1500 second feet for the 
Turlock Irrigation District and 850 second feet for the Modesto Irrigation 
District. 

“5. The City and County of San Francisco will in no way interfere with 
the storage of flood waters, in sites other than Hetch Hetchy and Lake 
Eleanor by the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts or either of said 
districts for use in said districts, and will return to the Tuolumne River above 
the La Grange dam, for the use of said irrigation districts, all surplus or waste 
flow of the river which may be used for power. 

“6. The City of San Francisco will upon request sell to said Modetso and 
Turlock Irrigation Districts for the use of any land owner or owners therein 
for pumping sub-surface water for drainage or irrigation any excess of electric 
power which may be generated such as may not be used for the water supply 
herein provided and for the actual municipal purposes of the City and County 
of San Francisco, (which purposes shall not include sale to private persons 
nor to corporations) at such price as will actually reimburse the said City and 
County for developing and transmitting the surplus electrical energy thus sold, 
the price in case of dispute to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior; and 
no power plant shall be interposed on the line of flow except by the said City 
and County except for the purposes and under the limitations above set forth. 

“7. The City and County of San Francisco will agree that the Secretary 
of the Interior shall at his discretion, or when called upon by either the City 
or the Districts to do so, direct the apportionment and measurement of the 
water in accordance with the terms of the preceding clauses of this stpulation. 

“8. The City and County of San Francisco, when it begins the develop¬ 
ment of the Hetch Hetchy site, will undertake and vigorously prosecute to 
completion a dam at least 150 feet high, with a foundation capable of support¬ 
ing the dam when built to its greatest economic and safe height, and when¬ 
ever, in the opinion of the engineer in charge of the reservoirs on behalf of 
said City and County and of the municipalities sharing in this supply, the 
volume of water on storage in the reservoirs herein applied for is in excess 
of the seasonal requirements of said municipalities, and that it is safe to do 
so, that such excess will be liberated at such times and in such amounts as said 
directions may designate, at a price to said Districts not to exceed the propor- 


222 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


tionate cost of storage and sinking fund chargeable to the volumes thus liber¬ 
ated, the price in case of dispute to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior; 
provided that no prescriptive or other right shall even inure or attach to said 
. districts by user or otherwise to the water thus liberated. 

“9. The City and County of San Francisco will, within two years after 
the grant by the Secretary of the Interior of the rights hereby applied for, 
submit the question of said water supply to the vote of its citizens as re¬ 
quired by its charter, and within three years thereafter, if such vote be affirma¬ 
tive, will commence the actual construction of the Lake Eleanor Dam and 
will carry the same to completion with all reasonable diligence, so that said 
reservoir may be completed within five years after the commencement thereof, 
unless such times hereinbefore specified shall be extended by the Secretary 
of the Interior for cause shown by the City, or the construction delayed by 
litigation; and unless the construction of said reservoir is authorzied by a vote 
of the said City and County and said work is commenced, carried on and 
completed within the times herein specified, all rights granted hereunder shall 
revert to the Government.” 

In considering the reinstated application of the City of San Francisco, I 
do not need to pass upon the claim that this is the only practicable and rea¬ 
sonable source of water supply for the City. It is sufficient that after careful 
and competent study the officials of the City insist that such is the case. By 
granting the application opportunity will be given for the City, by obtaining 
the necessary two-thirds majority vote, to demonstrate the practical question 
as to whether or not this is the water supply desired and needed by the resi¬ 
dents of San Francisco. 

I therefore approve the maps of location for the Lake Eleanor and Hetch 
Hetchy reservoir sites as filed by James D. Phelan and assigned to the City of 
San Francisco, subject to the filing by the City of the former stipulation set 
forth above, and the fulfillment of the conditions therein contained. 

Very respectfully, 

JAMES R. GARFIELD, 

Secretary. 

( Filed with Board of Supervisors May 18, 1908, by Marsden Manson, City 
Engineer.) 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 223 

refilings on the water supply to cover possible 

LAPSES. 

By Marsden Manson, City Engineer. 

NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 

Notice is hereby given that Marsden Manson claims the water now flow¬ 
ing in Eleanor Creek at the point where this notice is posted, to the extent 
of five thousand (5,000) miner’s inches measured under a four-inch pressure. 
The point where this notice is posted is described as follows: 

On the west bank of the Eleanor creek about three-quarters of a mile 
below the outlet of Lake Eleanor; and is in the NW. *4 °f section 3, T. 1 N., 
R. 19 E. M. D. B. & M. This notice is nailed to'a pine tree 16-inch dia. 60 
feet west of creek. 

The water is claimed for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power 
and domestic use, and the place of intended use is in and near the City and 
County of San Francisco, California, and along the line of the proposed 
conduit. 

It is proposed to divert such waters by means of a dam to allow the same 
to flow in natural channels, and in canals, tunnels, flumes, wooden and iron or 
steel pipes to the points of intended use, using such dams and other structures 
for its recovery from natural channels and its proper control as may be 
required. 

The size of the canal is to be ten feet wide on the bottom, sixteen feet 
wide on top, six and one-half feet deep on a grade of four feet per mile, or of 
such other dimensions as will give it an equivalent capacity. 

The sizes of flumes, pipes, tunnels and other conduits are to be such as to 
give them sufficient capacity to carry the amount of water claimed. 

Drenzy A. Jones. 

Posted at the request of Marsden Manson on the 1st day of 
October, 1908. 

Witness to posting: 

Leslie W. Stocker. 

L. R. Mercado. 

NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 

Notice is hereby given that Marsden Manson claims the water now flow¬ 
ing in the Tuolumne river at the point where this notice is posted, to the 
extent of fifteen thousand (15,000) miner’s inches measured under a four-inch 
pressure. The point where this notice is posted is described as follows: 

On the North bank of the Tuolumne river, near the mouth of Jawbone 

creek. 

The water is claimed for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power 
and domestic use, and the place of intended use is in and near the City and 
County of San Francisco, California, and along the line of the proposed 

conduit. 

It is proposed to divert such waters by means of a dam to allow the same 
to flow in natural channels, and in canals, tunnels, flumes, wooden and iron 
or steel pipes to the points of intended use, using such dams and other struc- 


224 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


tures for its recovery from natural channels and its proper control as may be 
required. 

The size of the canal is to be ten feet wide on the bottom, sixteen feet 
wide on top, six and one-half feet deep on a grade of four feet per mile, or of 
such other dimensions as will give it an equivalent capacity. 

The sizes of flumes, pipes tunnels and other conduits are to be such as to 
give them sufficient capacity to carry the amount of water claimed. 

Drenzy A. Jones. 

Posted at the request of Marsden Manson on the 4th day of October, 1908. 

Witness to posting: 

Leslie W. Stocker. 

L. R. Mercado. 

NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION OF WATER. 

Notice is hereby given that Marsden Manson claims the water now flow¬ 
ing in Tuolumne river at the point where this notice is posted, to the extent 
of ten thousand (10,000) miner’s inches measured under a four-inch pressure. 
The point where this notice is posted is described as follows: 

On the north bank of the Tuolumne river at the outlet of Hetch Hetchy 
valley and being in the NE.J4 of section 17, T. 1 N., R. 20 E., M. D. B. & M. 
This notice is nailed to an 8-inch dia. oak tree above the narrowest part of the 
gorge; at the base of the tree being an old United States Geological Survey 
bench mark. 

The water is claimed for irrigation, manufacturing purposes, water power 
and domestic use, and the place of intended use is in and near the City and 
County of San Francisco, California, and along the line of the proposed 
conduit. 

It is proposed to divert such waters by means of a dam, to allow the same 
to flow in natural channels, and in canals, tunnels, flumes, wooden and iron 
or steel pipes to the points of intended use, using such dams and other struc¬ 
tures for its recovery from natural channels and its proper control, as may be 
required. 

The size of the canal is to be ten feet wide on the bottom, sixteen feet wide 
on top, six and one-half feet deep on a grade of four feet per mile, or of such 
other dimensions as will give it an equivalent capacity. 

The sizes of flumes, pipes, tunnels and other conduits are to be such as to 
give them sufficient capacity to carry the amount of water claimed. 

Drenzy A. Jones. 

Posted at the request of Marsden Manson on the 29th day of September, 
1908. 

Witness to posting: 

Leslie W. Stocker. 

L. R. Mercado. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


225 


TRANSFER OF REFILINGS TO WATER RIGHTS BY MARSDEN 

MANSON TO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

The undersigned, Marsden Manson, hereby transfers, assigns and sets 
over to the City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation or¬ 
ganized under the Constitution and Laws of the State of California, for and 
in consideration of one ($1.00) dollar, the receipt of which is hereby ac¬ 
knowledged ; all his rights, titles and interests in and to the accompanying 
filings of water rights to the waters of Tuolumne river and Eleanor creek in 
the County of Tuolumne, State of California. These filings were made under 
the official direction of the undersigned in his capacity as City Engineer at the 
same points and to the same amounts of water to which the previous filings apply. 
These filings are made in accordance with the laws of the State of California 
and are recorded in the office of the Recorder of Tuolumne County, California, 
as required by law. 

(Signed) MARSDEN MANSON. 

State of California, City and County of San Francisco. 

On this 22nd day of October in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred 
and Eight, before me, L. H. Anderson, a Notary Public in and for the City 
and County of San Francisco, personally appeared Marsden Manson, known 
to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, 
and who duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. 

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official 
Seal, at my office in the City and County of San Francisco, the day and year 
in this certificate first above written. 

(Seal) (Signed) L. H. ANDERSON, 

Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of 

California. 























. 








































































































REPORT OF 


MR. DESMOND FITZGERALD 


AND 


PROF. C. D. MARX 

CONSULTING ENGINEERS 

ON THE 

Adequacy of the Tuolumne Source 
OF WATER SUPPLY 


San Francisco, California 


OCTOBER 23d, 1908. 


228 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


San Francisco, Oct. 8th, 1908. 

LETTER SUBMITTING QUESTION TO THE 

CONSULTING ENGINEERS. 

Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald and Prof. C. D. Marx, 

Consulting Engineers. 

Gentlemen:—With the approval of his Honor, the Mayor, the Committee 
on Public Utilities, and the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, you have 
been selected to report upon the following problem which has arisen in public 
discussion of certain rights offered to this City by grant of May 11th, 1908, by 
Hon. James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior: 

Will the proposed development of Lake Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy 
reservoir sites be sufficient to enable San Francisco to secure a water supply of 
200 million gallons per day from the Tuolumne River , due regard being had 
to the granted rights of the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation districts to 
the natural flow of the river uf to twenty-three hundred and fifty {2350) second 
feet ? 

This is the critical question involved in the development of this source 
either as a re-inforcing or as an independent supply. 

The superb nature of the drainage areas, the adequacy of the reservoirs 
and the excellent sites for dams being generally recognized and accepted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

(Signed) MARSDEN MANSON, 

City Engineer. 

San Francisco, Oct. 23, 1908. 

To the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, 

Gentlemen :—I have the honor to transmit herewith the report of Mr. 
Desmond Fitzgerald and Prof. C. D. Marx, Consulting Engineers, upon the 
crucial problem of the adequacy of the Tuolumne source of water supply as 
made possible of acquisition under the terms of the grant of May 11th, 1908, 
by the Hon. James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. Fitzgerald was already familiar with the entire region by reason of 
his examination in 1903. Prof. Marx accompanied the undersigned on Sept. 
30th to Oct. 8th, 1908 inclusive, in a careful examination of the reservoirs, dam 
sites, and drainage areas. Since that date, the Consulting Engineers, with a 
number of assistants from the office, have been engaged in a critical analysis of 
all available data bearing upon the problem. It will be observed that their 
final analysis and report is based upon the measured run-off as gauged by 
the U. S. Reclamation Service at La Grange, and not upon theoretical discus¬ 
sions of rainfall. The City will doubtless receive from . these authorities 
assurance of the adequacy of the sources now available with keen apprecia¬ 
tion, as no problem of equal moment and such far reaching consequences 
confronts this municipality. 

It is a matter of profound gratification to the undersigned that the 
sources, for which he has persistently struggled, have received such high 
endorsement. 

Respectfully submitted, 

(Signed) MARSDEN MANSON, 

City Engineer. 


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 


229 


REPORT OF MR. DESMOND FITZGERALD AND PROF. C. D. MARX, 
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE 
TUOLUMNE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY FOR SAN FRAN¬ 
CISCO, CALIFORNIA. 

San Francisco, Cal., Oct. 23, 1908. 

To the Honorable, the Board of Public Works, of the City and County of 
San Francisco. 

Gentlemen :—Our final instructions in regard to the investigation of the 
safe yield of the Lake Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy water sheds were received 
from your Board through the City Engineer, Marsden Manson, Esq., on 
October 8th. They were as follows: 

The consulting engineers are asked to answer the following question: 

Will the proposed development of the Lake Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy 
ieservoir sites be sufficient to enable San Francisco to secure a water supply 
of 200 million gallons per day from the Tuolumne River, due regard being 
had to the granted rights of the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts to 
the natural flow of the river up to twenty-three hundred and fifty (2350) sec¬ 
ond feet? 

In order to secure a daily water supply from any water shed with safety, 
it is necessary to determine the yield during the period of longest and most 
severe drought. This is commonly called the “Critical Period.” It is evi¬ 
dently unsafe to deal in this connection with the average flow from the water 
shed because this is made up of the total run-off, including freshets. The true 
measure of capacity of a domestic water supply is the quantity it may be de¬ 
pended upon to furnish in every emergency. There are two methods for 
determining the critical period; one by a study of rainfall tables and the 
other by considering the actual amount of water flowing from the water shed. 
As the relations existing between rainfall and run-off are extremely variable 
and complicated, it becomes a matter of great difficulty to deduce yield from 
rainfall. With the run-off given, however, the critical period may be selected 
with little difficulty and a safe daily capacity computed with accuracy. 

An examination of the rainfall records at La Grange on the Tuolumne 
water shed which extend from 1876 to 1900, shows that during that interval 
there were four periods of excessive drought, three of which were practically 
of the same severity, judging by the rainfall records, and the fourth in 1876-7, 
measured by the same standard, was the most severe. Fortunately, one of the 
former periods, that of 1897-8, occurred at a time when the run-off from 
Tuolumne River was measured. This period, therefore, has been selected for 
the present investigation as the “Critical Period” affording the most trust¬ 
worthy measure of the safe daily yield of the Lake Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy 
water shed in time of drought; all other measures must be based upon com¬ 
plicated theoretical consideration. 

At La Grange, which is lower down upon the stream than the Lake 
Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy water sheds, the area of the Tuolumne water 
shed is 1501 square miles. Lake Eleanor water shed has an area of 84 
square miles and that of Hetch-Hetchy is 452 square miles; their combined 
areas are 35.7 per cent of the area at La Grange. To the extent of this per¬ 
centage, therefore, with modifications for local conditions, these water sheds 
contribute to the flow which was measured at La Grange. 


230 


WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 


The storage proposed on the combined Hetch-Hetchy and Lake Eleanor 
water sheds is 96,000 million gallons. Our computations show that in the 
drought of 1897-8 draft from storage would have begun on July 1st, 1897 
and ended on March 1st, 1899, a period of 608 days. During the whole of 
this time, the reservoirs would have been below their full water line and there 
would have been no discharge of water into the streams below the dams ex¬ 
cept for the use of the irrigation districts in accordance with our instructions. 

On the basis of the measured run-off at La Grange, which, as we have 
already stated, we believe to be the most conservative basis that can be 
adopted, we have computed, that, during the severe period of drought pre¬ 
vailing in 1897-8, the safe daily supply for the City of San Francisco from 
Lake Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy water sheds would have been at the rate of 
240 million gallons daily. 

We consider, therefore, that the question you have asked us is answered 
in the affirmative and that the City can depend upon 40 million gallons daily 
over and above the 200 million gallons referred to in that question. 

We have also examined the rainfall records at all stations in this portion 
of California to ascertain if there is a possibility that in the high Sierras the 
critical period of 1897-8 may be exceeded in the future when judging on this 
basis, and we have found but one period, that of 1876-7, pointing in that direc¬ 
tion. In this period there is a record showing a rainfall at La Grange of 
only 5.74 inches. 

With the natural flow of the stream entirely diverted to the uses of the 
irrigation districts, which is the worst assumption that can be made for San 
Francisco, we find that the period of drought would have extended from 
July 1st, 1876 to January 1st, 1878, a period of 549 days, during which the 
only dependence of the City would have been on its stored water at Lake 
Eleanor and Hetch-Hetchy. After allowing for evaporation and other losses, 
we find that it would be necessary to increase the proposed storage to 120,000 
million gallons in order to furnish a draft of 200 million gallons daily. 

In conclusion, we desire to impress upon your Board the importance of 
beginning as soon as possible a series of continuous gaugings at the outlets of 
the Hetch-Hetchy and Lake Eleanor water sheds. 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) DESMOND FITZGERALD, ^ 

(Signed) CHAS. D. MARX. 

Consulting Engineers. 








FEB 3 1903 

















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































